Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DOVER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

PETITION

Wales (Self-Government)

Mr. G. Roberts: I beg to ask leave to present a humble Petition, signed by 240,652 of the people of the Principality of Wales, who desire to express their strong conviction that this honourable House, with its centralised form of legislative machinery, is precluded from adequately dealing with the distinctive national problem of Wales.
The Petitioners further express the conviction that
self-government within the framework of the United Kingdom should accrue to the good government both of Wales, and of the other parts of the United Kingdom,
and they conclude:
We pray your honourable House to promote an Act of Parliament to secure for Wales a Parliament with adequate legislative authority in Welsh affairs.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES

Legacy, British Museum

Mr. Pitman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what report he can make on the intentions of the Trustees of the British Museum in regard to the acceptance of a legacy under the will of the late George Bernard Shaw.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am informed by the Trustees of the British Museum that, as residuary legatees, together with the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and the National Gallery of Ireland, they are necessarily defendants to a summons issued by the Public Trustee, as executor of the will of the late George Bernard Shaw, to obtain the court's construction of various clauses in the will, including the determination as to whether the terms relating to the residuary trust funds in connection with the proposed British alphabet are valid and effectual. The matter is sub judice and I can make no statement about the intentions of the Trustees of the British Museum.

British Museum (Books)

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of books in the National Library at the British Museum and the number issued to the Reading Room during the last convenient annual period.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The total number of volumes is currently estimated at 5½ million. The number of issues to readers in 1955 was 1,234,401.

Mrs. Jeger: In view of the comparatively small number of books actually issued, could the right hon. Gentleman ask the Trustees to reconsider the possibility of storing somewhere outside London a large number of books which are only kept because of the Copyright Act?

Mr. Macmillan: That is a matter which is always under their consideration. Still, I think that anybody who reads 1¼ million books in a year has not done badly.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the issue of 1¼ million books makes his miserable contribution to the National Reference Libary of Science seem even more absurd?

Mr. Macmillan: No. The British Museum collection includes books dealing with a large number of subjects over many centuries.

Tate Gallery (Security Arrangements)

Mr. Hyde: asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is satisfied with the adequacy of the present security arrangements in the Tate Gallery.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The Trustees of the Tate Gallery are, I am informed, urgently reviewing their security arrangements in the light of the recent theft of a picture from the Gallery.

Mr. Hyde: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the occasion of the recent temporary disappearance of a painting from the Tate Gallery, the porter held the door open for the picture to be carried away, and that this was conveniently photographed by a photographer in attendance? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, since its return, the picture has been screwed to the wall of the Gallery? Is it intended that all pictures in the Gallery shall in future be screwed to the wall, or only the thirty-nine pictures in the Lane collection which Her Majesty's Government are evidently so anxious to retain in this country?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that my hon. Friend is correct in suggesting that the attendant held the door open. However, if my hon. Friend can give me any further information on that matter I shall be very glad to examine it. As regards screwing pictures to the wall, that has its advantages, which are obvious, and its disadvantages, in that the pictures are less easily removable in the case of fire.

Lane Bequest

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now reopen negotiations with the Government of Eire regarding the future of the pictures in the Lane bequest at the Tate Gallery.

Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir. This is not a matter for the Government.

Mr. Fletcher: Would it be reasonable to suggest that these pictures should temporarily be on view in Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: As I said in the debate which we had on this matter eighteen months ago, that is a matter for the trustees: they have power to lend. So far as I am aware, no request has recently been rceived from Ireland.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be loaned to the Government of Ireland to organise the Irish sweepstake?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be more in accord with British national justice to base the custody of these pictures on ethics rather than on petty legalism?

Mr. Brooke: I am not sure whether I ought to enter into these nice distinctions drawn by a member of the profession; but as to the ownership of these pictures, that was settled by a vote of the House about eighteen months ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Tobacco Tokens

Captain Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it would cost to extend the present concession on tobacco to cover the new increases in tax.

Mr. Gibson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Treasury of increasing the value of old-age pensioners' tobacco vouchers to include the increase in the Tobacco Duty.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The cost would be about £2¼ million in the first full year.

Mr. Usborne: On a point of order. Would you enlighten me, Mr. Speaker, as to why you did not call me when I rose to ask a supplementary question to Question No. 1? Did you not call me because, the case being sub judice, it is not in order to ask questions, or because you did not see me? I rose immediately after the Chancellor sat down.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I shall not always be called upon to give reasons why I do not call an hon. Member. It would involve me in a great deal of speaking. I watched to see whether the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) wished to ask a supplementary question, and, as he did not, I thought that he took the same view as I did, that the matter was sub judice and that nothing more could be said.

Captain Pilkington: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that the margin of comfort of most old-age pensioners is very small indeed, he will reconsider the matter in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and also


the possibility of a concession for nonsmokers? In view of his brilliant expounding of the merits of the Budget last night, can he not in this matter be a rather more susceptible Chancellor?

Mr. Gibson: May I also press the Chancellor to reconsider this matter and do something different? Does he realise that this aspect of his Budget proposals is regarded all over the country as about the meanest part of the whole Budget?

Mr. Macmillan: Both hon. Members have different methods of approach, but no doubt all these matters will be discussed during the course of our consideration of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Jay: Will the Chancellor at least say that he still has an open mind on this problem?

Mr. Macmillan: I have made my statement on the Budget, but this matter will no doubt come up again.

Captain Corfield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardship caused to old-age pensioners in respect of tobacco coupons when delay occurs in issuing pension books, since it is laid down that these coupons cannot be granted unless the pension book is produced; and whether he will issue a document or certificate to such people asserting that they are genuine pensioners.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am aware of the position, but I fear it would not be practicable to make the change suggested.

Estate Duty (Copyright Valuation)

Mr. Pitman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the new basis adopted by the Inland Revenue and accepted by the Public Trustee for the valuation of the copyright of the late George Bernard Shaw's estate; how it differed from the basis hitherto adopted by the Inland Revenue; and why it differed;
(2) what total annual income, before tax, what rate of interest and what rate of change in receipts from copyright need to be assumed over three and seven years and the life of the copyright to provide for a valuation of £500,000 under the new basis of valuation.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The only basis of valuation of copyrights for Estate Duty purposes is the statutory one, namely, the price which they would have fetched if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased. There is not, and never has been, any standard formula or rule for applying this basis to particular cases. Valuation is made in each case by reference to its own facts in the light of expert opinion obtained. No question of old or new bases of valuation therefore arises.

Mr. Pitman: Could my right hon. Friend then give an assurance that in the case of other authors who produce copyright and die, there will be no change whatever in the basis of valuation and that, therefore, taking say A. A. Milne and Bernard Shaw in comparison, there is no likelihood of any increase in the estates of other authors by reason of the present decision?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir: both my hon. Friend and I have some experience in this matter in another capacity, and I assure him that the method of valuation has always been the same and will continue to be the same.

Mr. Usborne: Approximately how much is it likely to cost the British Museum to contest this case? In the event of winning, how much does it expect to gain as a result of the action?

Mr. Macmillan: I could not possibly give those figures.

Expenditure (Research and Development)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the expenditure of the Government on research and development is allocated to civilian and defence purposes, respectively.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer the hon. Member to the Table listing Research and Development expenditure which appears as Appendix A to the Financial Secretary's Memorandum on the Estimates, and in particular to the notes to that Table. Of the total expenditure of £235 million, approximately £31 million is far civil and approximately £204 million for defence purposes; but of this defence figure an unidentifiable sum will be spent on


research and development which may have a Service or a civil application, or both.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Chancellor not think that it is time we overhauled this ratio between defence and civilian research expenditure? Even if he does not want to decrease the defence research expenditure, does he consider that an expenditure of the nation's effort in the ratio of eight to one in favour of the defence side is really deploying our resources in the best possible way?

Mr. Macmillan: Of course, research expenditure in general is not confined to those particular Votes. I underline what I said in my last sentence, that some of this expenditure is common and serves common purposes.

Scientific Libraries (Report)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funds he proposes to make available for the establishment of a National Reference Library of Science and a lending library, in view of the recent Report of the Scientific Advisory Council.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am making £2,500 available during the current year for the purchase and binding of scientific periodicals as a beginning to the lending library, and £10,350 has been included in the Estimates for the purchase of books and periodicals for the Patent Office Library. This Library will eventually form the basis for the Reference Library. As regards capital expenditure for building, I am unable to add anything to the Answer given on 1st November by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Chancellor realise that we are completely frittering away our opportunities in this direction, and that if he incurred this small amount of expenditure on scientific development the rewards would be out of all proportion to the sum that we are asking him to put into it? If he can spare a few minutes from his lotteries, will he please look at this matter afresh?

Mr. Macmillan: I assure the hon. Member that I am not allergic to expenditure on books.

Mr. Callaghan: Whilst acknowledging that the right hon. Gentleman has faithfully declared his interest, may I ask whether he is not aware that what is needed is a new building in which to house the books, together with staff to see that the books are lent? Is the Chancellor interested in all that too? If not, he ought to be.

Mr. Macmillan: Having declared my interest, I think that any further questions could be asked of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.

Premium Bonds

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the National Sunday School Union's letter protesting against the Premium Bond scheme.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I shall draw attention to the statement that I made in the course of yesterday's debate on the Budget proposals.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the fact that that statement merely affirms that a lottery is not a lottery, may I ask whether the Chancellor is aware that he is giving deep offence to workers in the Sunday school movement? Is he further aware that the letter which he has received in such strong terms is supported by a very strong feeling on the part of people who are active in the Sunday school movement?

Mr. Macmillan: As I said yesterday, I have the deepest respect for sincerely held views on this matter. I am, however encouraged by the position taken by the Chairman of the National Savings movement, who holds a position of equal respect both in the Savings movement and in the religious life of the country.

Post-War Credits

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, pending the repayment of post-war credits, he is prepared to provide a scheme of prizes in which holders of post-war credits can participate on the lines of the proposal for Premium Bonds.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will convert all outstanding post-war credits into Premium Bonds.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The answer is "No, Sir."

Mr. Hamilton: Since these unfortunate people have been denied interest on their now more than ten years' old loan to the Government, will the Chancellor not consider extending his bookmaking activities so that these people may get at least a run for their money, which is losing value all the time that this Government are stumbling on in power?

Mr. Chetwynd: Why will the Chancellor not consider this suggestion? Will he not give some measure of belated justice to these people to give them the opportunity of sharing in this lottery, if he himself really believes in it? If our suggestion was adopted, would he not have a large sum available to begin with for distribution as prizes?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. The two questions are quite different and are not related.

Mr. Jay: Why does the Chancellor weary of well doing? If he is so enthusiastic about gambling, why not press on with this ingenious suggestion?

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman has asked a question more for the sake of making his point than for asking me for an answer.

Mr. Usborne: Whether the Chancellor is enthusiastic about gambling or not, does he not realise that a great many people feel that post-war credits, which were taken from them for one purpose during the war, have subsequently been filched by the Government and not returned to them, and that a great many people consider that they should be treated much more fairly?

Mr. Macmillan: That is a quite different question, which both Governments have had to face, and has nothing to do with the question of Premium Bonds.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek a winning ticket in the Adjournment lottery.

British Forces, Germany (Cost)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the Government plan to cut Government

spending by £100 million makes allowance for increases in current cost of maintaining British forces in Germany.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the proposal to save £100 million on the Estimates, allows for the recovery from the German Government of some or all of the costs of maintaining British forces in Germany.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As explained in the Statement on Defence, 1956, the current Estimates, to which the new economy drive relates, assume the receipt of £50 million from the Federal German Government. Negotiations with that Government on the payment of support costs after 6th May, 1956, are now in progress and I cannot anticipate their outcome.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not clear that if the Germans stand on the strict letter of the Paris Agreements, at least £50 million of the Chancellor's bonds has gone down the drain already? What will he do about that?

Mr. Macmillan: That is a very unwise supplementary question in view of the fact that these negotiations are now proceeding.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the fact that in addition to probably not paying anything towards the cost of our four divisions, the German Government have now decided that all British Service men living in requisitioned property may have to get out by 1st May, would the Chancellor not agree that this will be an added burden?

Mr. Macmillan: All these matters are now the subject of negotiation, and I must adhere to my reply that I do not propose to make a statement while these negotiations are in progress.

Budget (Expenditure)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts, and what percentages of the total Budget they represent, allocated, respectively, in the present Budget to defence, housing, health, National Insurance, and education.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Answer:


ESTIMATED EXPEDITURE, 1956–1957


—
£m.
Percentage of total ordinary expenditure


Defence
1,499
31·5


Housing
77
1·6


Health*
501
10·5


Exchequer Contributions to National Insurance Funds
105
2·2


Education (including Universities)
383
8·0


*In addition, £36 million, or 0·8 per spent on the welfare foods services now administered by the Health Departments.

Income Tax (Property Valuation)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the effect on Income Tax assessments of the new valuation of houses for local rating purposes.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement about the valuation of property for Income Tax under Schedule A which was made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 19th April during the debate on my Budget proposals.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Chancellor aware that householders will be gratified at the decision to retain the old valuations for Income Tax purposes; but could he take some steps to extend the same principle to bodies like the Metropolitan Water Board, which are now using the new valuation for collecting rates?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that is a different question from the Schedule A matter to which this Question refers.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this situation will cause considerable hardship in Scotland, where valuations are being frozen for five years, and that where there have been partial valuations they create a handicap for one citizen as compared with another?

Mr. Macmillan: One of the reasons given by my right hon. Friend as to why it was not possible to introduce a new Schedule A system was that it would produce the anomaly of different systems in England and in Scotland.

Government Expenditure (Economy Measures)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will give a detailed statement on the proposed £100 million economy measures.

Mr. Peart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to announce the details of his proposed economy measures; and if he will issue a White Paper.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Decisions involving important changes in policy or administration will be announced as and when they are taken, but I cannot yet say when the first announcement will be made.

Mr. Johnson: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so coy and unlike his usual self in this matter? This will obviously involve major changes of policy. Surely he has the courtesy to give the House at least some notice in advance of what he intends to do.

Mr. Macmillan: No, I think it is much better to make the announcement when we have made a decision.

Mr. Peart: In view of the fact that the Financial Secretary hedged when pressed on a matter affected by this Question last week, may I have an assurance from the Chancellor that there will be no cutting down of the technical education programme and that it will not be affected by this economy measure?

Mr. Macmillan: When we make decisions we shall announce them to the House.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the Leader of the Opposition has given notice that we should like a debate on technical education and a number of other subjects very soon, has the right hon. Gentleman not yet taken the point, made in all sincerity and not in a party sense, that this procedure is making a farce of our Parliamentary proceedings in the debates on the Estimates? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how we can debate Estimates which have been published but which, within the next two or three weeks, may be completely destroyed as a result of a Government decision?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that there will be any difficulty in treating this


matter either in a party sense or in all sincerity. All Governments from time to time have made changes in their decisions on expenditure even after the Estimates have been presented. What we propose this year is to do that in an orderly manner and announce our decisions to the House.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since this decision and announcement has been made in the most disorderly manner, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when was the last occasion that Estimates were introduced at the usual time and then, within three weeks of the beginning of the financial year, an announcement was made by the Government that the Estimates were to be cut by £100 million?

Mr. Macmillan: I remember very well an occasion at the beginning of my political life, the first time that a Socialist Government broke down and ran away, under Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.

Purchase Tax (Sporting Cartridges)

Commander Maitland: asked the Secretary to the Treasury what amount was realised by the imposition of the present Purchase Tax on sporting cartridges during the past financial year.

Mr. H. Brooke: I regret that this information is not available.

Estate Duty Office

Mr. Freeth: asked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) what economies in staff have been effected by the Estate

NUMBER OF ESTATES LIABLE TO ESTATE DUTY DEALT WITH BY THE ESTATE DUTY OFFICE IN 1938–39 AND 1954–55


Range of net capital value of estate
England and Wales
Scotland
Great Britain


1938–39
1954–55
1938–39
1954–55
1938–39
1954–55


Exceeding
Not exceeding










£
£


No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.


5,000
30,000
…
…
13,536
27,661
1,681
3,496
15,217
31,157


30,000
100,000
…
…
2,082
3,580
245
461
2,327
4,041


100,000
500,000
…
…
406
574
57
80
463
654


Over 500,000
…
…
…
28
24
6
4
34
28


TOTALS
…
…
…
16,052
31,839
1,989
4,041
18,041
35,880

Duty Office as a result of the abolition of legacy duty and succession duty in 1949;

(2) what economies in staff have been effected by the Estate Duty Office as a result of the minimum level at which Estate Duty is chargeable being raised to £2,000 in 1949 and to £3,000 in 1954.

Mr. H. Brooke: At the end of the war there were serious staff shortages and heavy arrears in the Estate Duty Office, while the work was increasing in complexity and contentiousness owing to rising rates of duty.
The raising of the exemption limits in 1946 and 1954 by themselves gave little relief. The abolition of legacy and succession duties in 1949 gave material savings, which were fully taken into account in arriving at the staff necessary to cope satisfactorily with the work.
As I said in the Budget debate, the total staff showed no material change between 1939 and 1956, although in this period the larger estates and those most difficult to handle doubled in number.

Mr. Freeth: asked the Secretary to the Treasury the number of estates dealt with by the Estate Duty Office in 1938–39 and 1954–55 with probate values between £5,000 and £30,000, between £30,000 and £100,000, between £100,000 and £500,000, and those over £500,000.

Mr. H. Brooke: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Answer:

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Rating Valuation

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, as the revaluation of properties carried out under the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, is of an inflationary character, he will postpone the operation of these new valuations until the present inflationary situation has abated.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I cannot accept either the hon. Member's premise or his suggestion.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that shopkeepers and many householders are complaining at the excessive increase in their valuations, and that already they are suggesting that this is another reason why they should ask for wage increases? As this will inevitably push up the cost of living again, are we to take it that it is part of the Government's policy to continue what they have been doing during the last two or three years, namely, to increase the cost of living at the expense of the poorer people?

Mr. Sandys: I always hesitate to enter into economic discussions, but the only practical effect of revaluation is to alter the distribution of the rate burden as between different classes of property owners. To the extent that it reduces the share of one class, it increases the share of the others. The overall effect, therefore, is neither inflationary nor deflationary.

Mr. Lewis: Is not the Minister aware that industry—big industry and the wealthy industrialist who are represented on the benches opposite—is still getting away with it? If the argument is right in respect of small shopkeepers and householders, why does not the right hon. Gentleman do the same in the case of the big businessmen and support a Bill promoted by an hon. Friend of mine which will come before the House on Friday?

Mr. Sandys: I should not like to anticipate the attitude which this side of the House may adopt towards the Bill coming up on Friday.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what reply he has given to the request of the National Chamber of Trade that he should receive a deputation from them in regard to the new revaluation of shops and houses.

Mr. Sandys: I have agreed to receive a deputation at the appropriate time.

Mr. Lewis: Is the appropriate time likely to be within the next few weeks? If, as I hope will be the case, this representative body really tells the right hon. Gentleman the facts of life on this question and can substantiate the claims which it is now making, will he give the House an assurance that he will agree to amend the present position?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman has asked a lot of things. I am always interested to hear about the facts of life; we all are. The appropriate time for the deputation will be when the position becomes a little clearer. What the effect of its arguments will be I cannot say until I have heard them.

New Buildings, London (Garage Space)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what car-storing facilities will be contained in the new building to be erected upon the site of the Holborn Restaurant.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I understand that there will be provision for parking seventy cars in the basement.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what car-storage accommodation is to be provided as a result of the new building operations taking place in Bennett Street, between Sir James's Street and Arlington Street.

Mr. Powell: The planning authority took the view that the site was too confined for it to be practicable to provide any such accommodation.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is an office building going up in one of the most congested parts of London, and that it is idiotic to erect a building which provides the same


facilities as were provided in Queen Victoria's time? Will he do something to ensure that the decision is altered?

Mr. Powell: This is a matter entirely within the scope of the local planning authority. The matter is not one in which my right hon. Friend would be justified in revoking its decision.

Exchequer Grants (Coast Protection)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what modifications he has made in the formula generally applied in respect of Exchequer grants to local authorities in regard to coast protection.

Mr. Sandys: None, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Old People

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will encourage local authorities to build additional housing accommodation for old people that will include provision for meals and some nursing care.

Mr. Sandys: I am at present looking into the whole question of housing accommodation for old people and shall be making a statement shortly.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While I welcome that announcement by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he will consult the Minister of Health and try to deal with the very sad and tragic cases which arrive in hospital, a situation which would be quite unnecessary if proper provision had been made for them in housing accommodation earlier?

Mr. Sandys: My relations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health are of the closest.

Mr. Mitchison: Are the right hon. Gentleman's relations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer sufficiently close for this extra accommodation to attract the subsidy which has recently been taken away?

Mr. Sandys: My relations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer are intimate and cordial.

Dame Irene Ward: Does my right hon. Friend realise how glad I am that he now appears to be moving in the direction of co-operation?

Mr. Sandys: I have come to the conclusion that my best policy is one of co-existence with the hon. Lady.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people will observe with some surprise the distinction between his description of his relations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his relations with the hon. Lady?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the present average difference in the cost of erecting one or two-roomed bungalows for elderly people and the normal council house; and to what extent flats are being erected providing small flats for elderly couples on the ground floor.

Mr. Sandys: The answer to the first part of the Question is about £400 and £325 respectively. The information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.

Mr. Sorensen: As the Minister said in answer to a previous Question that he would make a statement about suitable provision for elderly people, can he say when he is likely to make such a statement, especially having regard to my Question?

Mr. Sandys: I will make my statement as soon as possible. That does not mean that I shall be able to say exactly how many flats on the ground floor have been provided and how many of them have been occupied by elderly people.

Defective Electric Wiring

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that the negotiations between the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee and the London Electricity Board for the introduction of an assisted wiring scheme for the benefit of tenants have broken down; and whether, in the circumstances, he will introduce legislation to meet the hardship suffered by tenants of premises where the electric wiring is defective and the landlord refuses to cure the defect.

Mr. Sandys: It is not clear to me what change in the law the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Fletcher: Is not the Minister aware that to change the law might do something to remove the very considerable hardship existing at present?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member has done no more than repeat his Question again. What I should like to know is in what way he would like the hardship to be alleviated; but as the rules of order do not permit him to give information, he will have to remain silent.

Mr. Mitchison: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practical hardship is that many tenants cannot pay for better wiring when it is needed? Is there nothing that he can do about it?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman still has not indicated what reform he has in mind. Does he suggest that the landlords should pay, that the local authorities should pay, that the Exchequer should pay, or that the Electricity Board should pay?

Mr. Fletcher: If I give the Minister a detailed explanation of what I propose, will he look at the matter sympathetically?

Mr. Sandys: I will certainly closely study any suggestions put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Essex

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the approximate number of houses erected, or in process of erection, in the County of Essex by local authorities outside their boundaries both in respect of the London County Council and otherwise.

Mr. Sandys: Approximately 50,000.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there has been a proper allocation of land for the respective authorities? Has he any figures to indicate the proportion of land in Essex acquired for use by the London County Council and other authorities?

Mr. Sandys: I have no figures handy in terms of acreage, but of the total of 50,000 houses, about 48,000 were for accommodation provided by the London County

Council and the remainder were divided between West Ham, East Ham and Chingford.

Overcrowding (Local Authority Lists)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further consideration has been given to the hardship of persons urgently needing relief from overcrowding or living in unsuitable conditions who for various reasons still find themselves unable to be placed on the housing list of any local authority.

Mr. Powell: I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind. But, if he has any suggestion, my right hon. Friend will certainly consider it sympathetically.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that he does not know what is in my mind? If so, is he not aware that the matter has been debated in the House more than once? Surely almost every hon. Member knows that there are individuals who cannot get on to any list at all for various reasons. As sympathetic attention was paid to this matter by the Minister's predecessor, will the Minister do the same?

Mr. Powell: Not only was attention paid to the matter by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, but my right hon. Friend has paid attention to it, and he sent advice on the subject to local authorities a year ago.

Mr. Mitchison: If the hon. Gentleman wants a suggestion, I would ask whether it would not help the hard cases if the subsidy on rebuilding to meet overcrowding were restored to the figure from which it was recently reduced.

Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in London alone there are nearly 50,000 families needing housing accommodation whose cases are regarded as of extreme urgency? Will he help local authorities to get more sites in and around London so that accommodation can be provided, because at the moment very little can be done?

Mr. Powell: I was not aware that the subject of sites arose on this Question.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Caravan Sites

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further advice he is giving to local authorities in the problem of insanitary caravan sites.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend is still considering what advice he can usefully give on this problem.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister consider the advisability of issuing a circular to local authorities telling them of the need to have official caravan sites? Will he also advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his monetary policy is placing serious difficulties in the way of councils who have already taken official sites? Will he think further on that matter?

Mr. Powell: The Answer to the first part of the question is that that is what my right hon. Friend is considering. The second part of the question does not arise.

Year
Number of men called up for National Service
Estimated number of men granted deferment during the year


England
Scotland
England
Scotland


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)


1950
…
…
…
146,642
19,203
85,800
17,500


1951
…
…
…
140,398
19,858
80,900
17,500


1952
…
…
…
142,731
19,326
96,700
20,300


1953
…
…
…
129,528
17,058
91,300
19,300


1954
…
…
…
123,325
17,560
93,200
19,000


1955
…
…
…
131,144
18,150
90,600
19,200


Notes


1. The figures in columns (2) and (3) include men called up after deferment in previous years.


2. The figures in columns (4) and (5) are estimates and exclude short period deferments granted to boys at school. Statistics to show the total number of deferments granted are not maintained, but counts of the numbers of current deferments are taken twice yearly (see table on page 386 of Ministry of Labour Gazette for November, 1955).


3. There were five registrations in 1952 and three in 1955.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now extend the scope and nature of the exemptions from National Service in view of the increased needs of industry today for more technicians and other workers; and if he will make a statement on the way in which he plans to deal with these problems.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Call-up and Deferment

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour the number of men who have been, respectively, called up and deferred, respectively, in England and Scotland, during each of the years 1950 to 1955.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): As the Answer includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister considered the figures, whatever they are, in relation to our productivity and exports, and if so, with what results?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not seen the figures, but he will be able to greet the unseen with a cheer because they show how much better Scotland does than England in this respect.

Following is the Answer:

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. I have no power to exempt men from liability to National Service though as the hon. and learned Member is aware arrangements exist for deferment of call-up. So far as these are concerned I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to his Question of 6th March, 1956, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Hughes: Has not the Minister been able to review these exemptions in the light of the current conversations with Russian statesmen now in London?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think they have been reviewed particularly in relation to those conversations. This matter is constantly under review by the Government, and a number of exemptions have been made recently.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the call-up is having a serious effect upon the railway system in the South-West, where young men are being called upon to work at night although not allowed by law to do so? Will he look into the way in which the call-up affects the railway system?

Mr. Macleod: Of course, the call-up causes difficulty. The Forces today are by no means an unskilled occupation; indeed they never have been. Secondly, the more exemptions we make the further we get away from the principle of universality which is one of the things which make National Service acceptable in this country.

Mathematics and Science Graduates

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Labour to give an estimate of the numbers of those science teachers who are now undergoing National Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The number of graduates in mathematics and science who have taken a teacher-training course and who are now doing their National Service is about 360.

Mr. Johnson: As it is now the policy of the Government to defer many science teachers, is it not a farce, and unfair, to keep in the Services science teachers who have already been called up? Would it not be better to release those who are now serving the last few months of their National Service?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think there are any science teachers in the ordinary sense of the word in the Forces, because people are called up before they begin teaching. We have made very important exemptions in this field since 1st January, 1956. At present I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Lee: Of the numbers who are actually in the Services, how many are

in occupations there in which they can use their abilities? Will the Minister keep closely in touch with the Service Departments in order to make use of those abilities?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that I have the exact figure to cover the hon. Gentleman's question. The number of the exceptional arrangements to which I have referred is this year about one hundred.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Prime Minister if he is now able to make a statement about the Government's policy in relation to the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of recent developments in Government policy, he will now move to amend Standing Order No. 16 so as to provide an increased number of allotted days, the increase to be reserved for debates on the nationalised industries.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): A statement of the Government's policy in relation to the Special Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries will be made within the next few weeks. As I informed the House on 8th December, I do not think that to increase the number of allotted Supply days would provide the right answer to this particular problem.

Mr. Palmer: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the Government are taking a very long time over a matter upon which the Conservative Party once had very decided views? Does "a few weeks" mean before the summer Recess?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should complain if we take longer to make up our minds, if the final result is likely to be agreeable to him when it emerges. I hope that I shall be able to make a statement before the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Grimond: As it is now the policy of the Government to finance the nationalised industries directly from the Treasury it makes it all the more necessary that the House of Commons should


have some control over these industries. At present we have little or none: some of their reports and activities have not been debated for years. If the suggestion in my Question is not acceptable, will the Prime Minister consider setting up a Standing Committee to watch over them?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Report of the Select Committee. His point is perfectly fair, and there is great force in it. All I suggest is that we should make known to the House our decision on this Report and then we can debate, if necessary, the conclusions we have come to.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister have consultations with the Trades Union Congress before coming to a conclusion on this matter and bringing it to the House?

The Prime Minister: I am inclined to think that our consultation should be with the House first.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is not the Trades Union Congress vitally interested, because any change may affect the normal arrangements between the management and the workers of the nationalised industries? Will he consider its views if they are sent to him?

The Prime Minister: I am not going to do anything rough or revolutionary about this. We want to serve the House in what is a very complicated and difficult matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Allaun: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to give better opportunities to Members and to relieve pressure on the Order Paper on other days, he will move to amend Standing Order No. 8, with a view to providing for the taking of Oral Questions on Friday mornings.

The Prime Minister: To have Oral Questions on Fridays would be contrary to the practice of this House and it would not, I think, be convenient to adopt the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Allaun: In view of the growth and importance of Question Time and its value to private Members, would the Prime Minister consider trying my suggestion for an experimental period?

The Prime Minister: I do not think so. Curiously enough, my Answer—I did not know this until after I had drafted it—coincides closely with the Answer given by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) when he was Leader of the House. I have had no representations in the interval in favour of this practice, which I believe would not be generally welcomed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would it not be a good idea, in order to stop some of these home-rule nationalist movements, if we had all the Scottish and Welsh Questions answered only on Friday?

Mr. Ross: Will not the Prime Minister give consideration to the congestion at Question Time, and turn his mind to the fact that since he became Prime Minister the work of two Departments has been turned over entirely to the Secretary of State for Scotland, which means that Scottish Members have only one day a week on which they are entitled to ask Questions?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to enter into these internal matters on this particular day.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT OF ARMS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the present policy of the Foreign Office with regard to the disclosure of information on the export of arms to foreign countries differs from that of the Ministry of Supply; and whether he will take steps to co-ordinate the future practice of Government Departments on such matters.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the policy of the Labour Administration in 1949 in giving details of the countries to which types of arms had been exported has now been changed and that Her Majesty's Government will now no longer give this information; and the reason for this change in policy.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary explained the position on 16th April. It is—and has been under successive Governments—contrary to the normal practice to disclose details of current exports of military equipment to foreign countries. Her


Majesty's Government do not propose to depart from this practice. I know of no differences in the manner in which Departments today execute the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Henderson: Did not the Prime Minister state publicly last November that Russian-type tanks, aircraft and even submarines had been supplied to the Government of Egypt and has it not also been stated publicly that Centurion tanks have been supplied by this country to Egypt? Is it not desirable in the circumstances that the Government should consider modifying the normal practice to which the Prime Minister just referred, so that we could be told what steps are being taken to supply the Government of Israel with comparable types of aircraft so as to maintain the arms balance in the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: I have considered this matter. It is quite true that there have been occasional exceptions from the general rule, but I believe that, on balance, advantage lies in maintaining the rule hitherto observed.

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman admits that there has been an occasion when information asked for has been furnished to hon. Members, why does he regard the present case as an exception? Is it because the Foreign Secretary sought to shield himself behind this alleged practice, when it was not a practice at all, because he did not want to furnish information about the number of tanks and aircraft sent to Egypt and the Arab States, while, at the same time, no material of that kind has been sent to the State of Israel? Was it not a complete evasion?

The Prime Minister: I do not think so. The right hon. Gentleman, for whose observations on defence I have always had great respect, once replied to similar Questions that it was contrary to normal practice to give details of sales of defence equipment. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman followed that up with a later answer saying that
Though it is contrary to normal practice … I think it right to make an exception in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 1154.]
It is not for me to say whether the right hon. Gentleman's attitude was logical. I

am only saying that it is one which we are not going to follow.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the information asked for was not about quantities or details of arms provided to Egypt or the Arab States but to which countries those exports were sent? Is not that the position? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman gave the actual numbers.

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman did. I have got it here. The right hon. Gentleman said that seven tanks left between May and October. He made an exception. I am not complaining. Anybody can make exceptions if he wants to do so, but I am saying that, on the whole, we had better not persist in that practice.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister not agree that whatever may be the merits of the normal rule of not disclosing this information, there are occasions when it is desirable to disclose it? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in respect of the balance of arms to the Middle East it is extremely important not only that it should be maintained, but that it should be seen to be maintained? Will the right hon. Gentleman please reconsider the matter in relation to the present situation in the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in a recent debate I made a considered statement about how the general balance of arms lay at present in the Middle East, and I have no present reason to alter that statement. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will readily agree, that is different from saying what particular weapon is going to what particular country, especially as, of course, we are only an element in the situation.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will the Prime Minister take into account that it has been more than once asserted by Ministers that there is a fair equity in the supply of arms as between Israel and the Arab States? May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman for consideration and


answer whether we should not be in a far better position to judge whether Ministers are right or wrong if we had reasonable facts about the supply of arms to Israel and the Arab States? Therefore, is it not reasonable that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) should make this request?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience, knows well, this has been many times weighed and considered, but I think that these are matters in which Her Majesty's Government must take responsibility. I gave what I am sure was a fair and true assessment of the balance of armaments in that particular part of the world quite a short time ago, and I have no present reason to alter it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister not aware that he admitted in that statement that the balance of arms would be before very long seriously upset by the delivery of Czech arms to Egypt? Is the right hon. Gentleman still giving consideration to this matter in order that the balance may be restored?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is fair to say that my Answer covers the point which the right hon. Gentleman raises. I have no present reason to change the assessment that I gave in that last debate.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that after considerable persistence, in order to obtain a satisfactory reply from the Prime Minister, I have not been successful, I beg to give notice that if there is not to be a debate on the Middle East position generally, I shall raise this matter on some occasion on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. BULGANIN AND MR. KHRUSHCHEV (VISIT)

Dr. Stross: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his conversations with Mr. Khrushchev and Marshal Bulganin on the situation in the Middle East.

The Prime Minister: I would prefer to make no statement on any aspect of these talks while they are still in progress.

Dr. Stross: Whilst, of course, not wishing to embarrass the Prime Minister

in any way, particularly in front of witnesses, may I ask whether, so far at least, one may observe that they may well have brought peace nearer in the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: The value of all conversations, in my experience, is to be judged when they are concluded.

Mr. Robens: Whilst expressing the hope that the talks which the Prime Minister is now conducting with Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev will turn out to be quite successful, may I ask whether, after the talks have been concluded, the right hon. Gentleman will consider issuing a White Paper indicating the topics that have been discussed and the conclusions arrived at?

The Prime Minister: There will certainly be, no doubt, a very full announcement when the talks are concluded. The talks are confidential. The results will be fully exposed and no doubt, in due course, if it wishes to do so, the House can debate them.

Mr. Shinwell: Could the Prime Minister at the same time furnish details of the conversations at another function?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Royle: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Treaty of Paris was signed in April, 1856, if he will arrange a public ceremony to mark this anniversary during the visit of Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev.

The Prime Minister: I understand that the anniversary fell in March, and in these circumstances the hon. Gentleman's interesting suggestion does not arise.

Mr. Royle: Will the Prime Minister allow me to apologise? Perhaps my reference was wrong, but I am in very good company in that respect, including even The Times newspaper. Will the Prime Minister, however, agree that it is a matter of mutual congratulation that the peoples of France, Russia and Britain have lived in peace, in spite of changing Governments and changing régimes, for a hundred years, and that there should be some outstanding recognition of this fact by the Government?

The Prime Minister: I think there has been a lot of outstanding recognition of


Anglo-Soviet relations in the last few days, and we welcome those opportunities. I do not think we need go back a hundred years. I think rather that we want to look forward to the next twenty or thirty years.

Mr. A. Henderson: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the best commemoration of this anniversary would be a successful outcome to the present talks?

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY (MINISTERIAL CONTROL)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to transfer Ministerial control of the Atomic Energy Authority to a Minister sitting in this House.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Warbey: May I ask the Prime Minister to appreciate, in view of the vast and growing importance of this great public enterprise, that hon. Members ought to have an opportunity of putting Questions to the Minister directly responsible for Government policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is an annoyance to the House, and I am sure an embarrassment to the Lord Privy Seal, that that right hon. Gentleman should so frequently have to tell

the House that he will have to consult his noble Friend before replying?

The Prime Minister: The Waverley Committee found that the most suitable Minister seemed to be the Lord President of the Council from the nature of his duties. I am sure that the House will feel that the arrangement whereby my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal should answer Questions in conjunction with the Lord President's knowledge is a reasonable one.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Prime Minister reconsider this matter, as over £30 million is being spent each year in this sphere and control of it is being removed from the experience of the House since there is no Parliamentary Secretary in the House to answer? Without any disrespect to the Lord Privy Seal, may I ask whether it would not be worth while considering some alteration in the Ministerial arrangements so that the House can feel that someone here is responsible in some part for the money that is being spent?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that we will do that. Though I shall naturally give attention to any suggestion from the hon. Member, I am sure that he will join with me in not wishing to see the creation of another Minister.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, 1956–57

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Heath.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (RURAL AREAS)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House views with concern the difficulties facing both British Railways and omnibus proprietors in maintaining their existing services in rural areas and invites the Government to review both the regulations and taxation affecting public transport in such areas, to encourage technical development and experimental services and to use their powers under subsection (1) of Section 17 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919.
Although the question of rural transport was discussed recently in this House, I make no apology for raising it again today. Among public services in rural areas other than transport the recent story is one of progress, but public transport has been deteriorating slowly and may easily slip back much faster. I do not wish to go over the same ground as was covered in a recent debate, or to become involved in too many detailed figures. Most of us are not experts on this question. Instead, I shall try to state the case in general terms, to assess the position fairly, and to make some suggestions which, I hope, will commend themselves to the Minister and to the House.
As a start, I want to make it clear that I am not one who turns to the Government at the first difficulty and asks for a general subsidy. On the other hand, I do not think that the Government can stand on the position which they took up when replying to a recent debate, when the well-known difficulties were recited but when very little help was offered. In fact, it sounded as if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was speaking from a British Transport Commission brief.
"A stitch in time saves nine" is a well-known homely proverb and recognised generally as being good advice. In the realm of government, however—and all Governments are the same, it does not matter whether they spring from that side of the House or from this side—there seems to be a preference for waiting until nine or even nineteen stitches are necessary, and long delays over transport may prove extremely expensive.
It is easiest to try to deal with this problem in two parts, taking rail first and road second. Few people in the country think that the railways can be expected to keep all branch lines in being, no matter how much money is now being lost on them. Equally, there are few in rural areas who are satisfied that any really creditable effort has been made by the railways to carry all the available passengers and freight. We must admit, however, that the possible passengers are today fewer than they were and are steadily becoming fewer still, owing to competition from private cars, vans, motor bicycles, etc.
Nor do they think that the railways have tried to do the best they could to provide modern trains. We are told that the primitive, dirty steam train is expensive to run, and it is certainly unattractive to travel in, but that is the form of train still running on most of these lines. Nor are there loading facilities of modern design at most country stations. Generally, it seems true to say that little effort has been made on the part of the railways to go out and get the traffic for these lines.
When I was in America last year I noticed the contrast. There, on the regional staff of railway companies it is not unusual to have a senior member of the staff with detailed knowledge of agriculture. He is concerned not only with trying to get the farmers' traffic on to the railways, but also acts in an advisory capacity to help to increase agricultural production, because increased production means increased traffic for the railways. The story here is a very different one.
Under the new reorganisation plans which, I believe, the railways are considering, I expect that we shall soon be presented with many more proposals for closing branch lines, and no doubt convincing figures will be martialled in


support of all these proposals. It may be a deviation, but I want to ask here what happens after most of the branch lines are closed? If we always accept all these figures, shall we then start on closing the main lines? I ask this because I believe that the same kind of figures can be produced to justify the closing of many of the main lines. Therefore, it is time that the Government indicated where they think this policy of contraction should stop.
On the other side of the picture, we must pay tribute to the recent improvement made by the introduction of the twin diesel engine. We have had to wait a long time for it, but it is proving a great success. But it is not the answer to traffic problems on the small branch lines. I wonder, therefore, whether the excuses by the railways about their inability to find what they call a fly-weight diesel to run on these lines is justified. Is it so difficult to develop this lighter, cheaper vehicle? I seem to remember that far more complicated transport problems were overcome in a short time during the war. The original models may not have been entirely successful, but they were soon withdrawn and modified.
I should have thought that the difficulties which were overcome at that time were far greater than that of finding what is called the fly-weight diesel. Other countries may not yet have found the complete answer, but they have gone further than we have. We need not go beyond Eire to find such a vehicle running in regular service. I am told that the wheels of this vehicle are of a special design. I wonder whether we have experimented with that form of wheel in this country. If we have not, or if we think that by further experiments we have anything more to learn, why should we not continue with the necessary experiments next week? It should not be difficult to get such a vehicle.
Next, I would like the Minister to consider whether he cannot encourage the Transport Commission to carry out the widest possible experiments and not just dismiss these various suggestions on the strength of figures that have been martialled on paper. I feel that the railways are altogether too much on the defensive. In support, I want to quote from the recent report of the North of Scotland

Hydro-Electric Board, which stated that it found the Transport Commission surprisingly reluctant to conduct an experiment with battery rail cars.
Nor do I believe that this is the only body which has run into that reluctance. There must be something to be gained from more experiments. Would it not be possible for the Minister to help with finance, if such help is necessary? I should have thought that to give financial aid to worthwhile experiments was something which he might well consider and be within his powers.
Then, too, I should like to see an appropriate section of one of these difficult branch lines run under what might be called light railway conditions, and with unattended halts. We have been told several times that this is not as easy as it sounds, nor likely to save as much money as some of us may think. It may well be so, but it would be much more convincing if some such experiment were, in fact, carried out so that everyone could judge the results. I believe that an Act called the Light Railways Act reached the Statute Book in 1896. Under that Act such a railway may be aided by public money, if it is needed for agriculture or fisheries, or is an adjunct to an essential industry.
I should also like to see one of these difficult lines offered for sale or lease. I do not see that we could lose anything thereby, if it is the object of the Transport Commission to close down a line. Certain advantages might emerge. I believe that bus companies have been approached to try such an experimental service, but no public advertisement has been made. I hope that it is not prejudice which is holding back the railways from advertising such a line, when an appropriate case for sale or lease arises.
We see today an increasing amount of traffic carried on country roads, but I doubt whether the railways are making a proper effort to get more carried by their trains. The collection and delivery of parcels in country districts is generally uncertain. Public relations between the railways and rural industries is almost non-existent and in many districts there is no continuing contact between the local railway authorities and the local Press. I know that in my home district of Penrith the local station


master has no authority to keep in constant touch with the local Press. The nearest official with that authority is at Barrow-in-Furness and although, as the crow flies, Barrow-in-Furness is not far, it is over the hills and virtually in another country.
Yesterday, the Chairman of British Railways visited Carlisle to meet representatives of local industry and trade. Carlisle is a railway town and to a great many of the local people all railway news is general news. By last Saturday the local Press had not been told that this particular visit was to take place. I mention that as evidence of the fact that public relations are often very weak indeed. I appreciate the difficulties with which railways are faced and the difficulty of competition which they are having to meet from road traffic, but I am far from convinced that everything which can be done is, in fact, now being done.
Turning now to road transport, in some ways the problems of road transport are very different from those facing the railways, but both road and rail equally are struggling for their lives against the private car, which has taken so much of their traffic, and we can see that difficulty to an even greater extent in America. I am told that today few rural bus services in this country pay. I am told that to run a bus in a country district may cost about 2s. per mile and that the traffic receipts may often be not more than 1s., and even less in some cases. That leaves a very wide gap.
I do not want to suggest that so big a gap is by any means the general rule, but I do believe that it is not infrequent. It is often smaller, but not so small that the abolition of the petrol tax alone would bridge it. I say that to put the question of fuel tax into its proper cash perspective. Its abolition would not alone solve the problem. On the other hand, it seems to be too rough justice that buses should pay the tax when using diesel fuel and that railways, when using the same fuel, should not, even when both services may be running in very close competition and serving the same district. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to discuss that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see whether a formula cannot be found to give at least some measure of relief.
My researches have led me to believe that many rural services are continued only because of a tacit understanding with licensing authorities whereby profitable and unprofitable services are somehow apportioned. That is hardly a very good permanent basis for important public services. There seem to be conflicting views about the best types of buses to use on rural routes. The bigger companies appear to favour bigger vehicles and claim that they are necessary when peak loads have to be carried. The smaller companies and the very small family firms have stressed to me the need for lighter diesel engined vehicles which can be operated by one man, and they say that on some of the routes in their areas there are no peak loads to carry.
They also told me that until very recently British manufacturers have not been offering such vehicles to the market—I am thinking of something costing about £2,500 as against a vehicle costing more than £4,000, which, I believe, is the cost of what is called a luxury coach. On most country services, passengers would be happy to do without chromium and plush; such buses should have low fuel consumption, plenty of room for luggage space and no unnecessary fittings. Will the Minister see that the small operator is not squeezed out, just because he cannot get the right type of vehicle?
Admittedly, the big operator is the manufacturer's best customer. There cannot be the same demand for smaller vehicles, but it would be wrong to lose services in rural areas simply because it is not attractive to manufacturers to produce the sort of vehicle that would give a rural service a new lease of life. The small operators may not be able to provide all their services more cheaply than can the bigger companies, but there must be some places in the countryside where they can.
I want, here, to deal with what may be a small point in the bigger framework, but which is none the less important. I understand that in order to buy a bus under the new hire-purchase regulations, one has to put down a 50 per cent. deposit. Some types of vehicles are exempt from that increase. They include ambulances, invalid carriages, and London taxi-cabs. It seems to be wrong that the hire-purchase terms for someone wanting to run a bus in a country


district should be more arduous than for someone wanting to buy a London taxicab. That is too much like one law for the rich and another for the poor. If it is the case, I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that the next regulations contain a proper amendment.
Take the word "regulations". It is clear that there must be strict regulations governing vehicles which are run as buses. I appreciate that those regulations are drafted in the interests of both the safety and comfort of passengers, but I sometimes wonder whether some of the conditions are not just copied from one version to the next, without much thought. Some of them may be more appropriate to olden days than to today, and I suspect that some of them may, in fact, carry more burdens than benefits.
I should like my right hon. Friend to look at them, particularly since I am told that the majority of light vehicles with twenty and fewer seats which are now on the market, fail to pass these regulations. I have in mind something rather lighter than the ordinary bus, but none the less a vehicle which may have a place on some roads and which can be purchased reasonably cheaply. My right hon. Friend will understand that if the standard body does not pass the regulations, and a special body has to be built, the price of the vehicle is greatly increased, when it may become useless for the purpose I have in mind.
In this country it is not permitted, I understand, for a passenger-carrying vehicle to tow a trailer. In Switzerland and Austria, as many of us will know, it is quite normal for passenger-carrying buses to pull trailers on much more difficult roads than we have over most of this country. Here again, I should have thought there was a case for reconsidering that regulation. A very light vehicle with a trailer might be able to do useful work on some remote routes.
It is not only in the matter of trailers that we see a difference between Switzerland and ourselves. It is quite common in many parts of Switzerland for much of the mails to be carried by local buses. Some, though not all, of the vehicles are, in fact, owned by the postal service. I wonder whether it might be possible in this country for the Post Office to make rather more use of the country buses.
I am not suggesting it could be done everywhere, but it is done in some places already and I would like to think it could be done in more, when it would mean a small regular source of revenue for operators on what might otherwise be not very attractive routes. It cannot be cheap to run special mail vehicles in all districts as now happens, and I should have thought there might be means of securing an economy here. If it did happen that some of the letters were delivered a little later in the day, I think that most people would prefer to have their letters a little late and have some transport as well, rather than have their letters at the old times and have no public transport.
In olden days, the old carriers' carts delivered the great bulk of the parcels which came to country towns by rail. Now the majority of them are delivered by railway vehicles perhaps twice a week. Would it not be possible to try to deliver more of the parcels traffic by the existing country bus services? It is quite understandable that each service wants to run its own transport, but it must often be unnecessarily expensive, considering how many vehicles belonging to one public authority or another are to be seen in country districts, few of them full and none of them carrying passengers.
There may be some districts where the roads travelled by Post Office vehicles have no buses. For these I wonder whether it would be possible to design a vehicle which would carry a few passengers as well. That is not such a revolutionary idea, for, in the old mail coach days, the mails and passengers were always carried together; and I can remember from my childhood days a dogcart running up a valley in the North of England with the postman carrying the mail, and two or three vacant places. It was the only public transport in the district—and very much valued.
I have said enough to indicate how precarious is the state of public transport in many rural areas today. I have made a few suggestions which I hope my right hon. Friend will accept as put forward with sincerity if not with expert knowledge. I admit that the private car, the van and the motor cycle are really at the root of the trouble. The numbers of possible passengers for country services, both road and rail, are smaller than they


were. These people are probably among the least well off section of the community, but they are just as important as any other. Furthermore, in many families having a car, it is really only one member who gets the benefit, the man perhaps taking it for his work and leaving his wife and other members of the family to depend on such public transport as there may be for their shopping and other journeys.
Without some public transport, our countryside would not long remain a happy and flourishing place. Many people would seek work and a home elsewhere, and, among other results of this, would be a drop in agricultural production which, as a country, we simply cannot allow. We cannot afford to have the social and economic life of the countryside crumble in that way. The problem does not seem to me to be one which either the railways or the bus operators can solve alone. The Government's initiative and help is clearly needed, and I hope that it will be freely given.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Did the hon. Gentleman, in an earlier part of his speech, mean to suggest that British railways did not seek to attract farm traffic? If he made inquiries in Cornwall he would find that British railways make very great efforts and keep in close consultation with the agricultural industries so as to bring to the markets flowers, potatoes and all manner of agricultural produce.

Mr. Vane: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thought I was casting aspersions on Cornwall. I did not have Cornwall in mind at all. If one takes the country as a whole, I think that the general statement I made is correct, that in rural areas there is no very alert salesmanship on the part of the railways to attract agricultural traffic—sugar beet and agricultural produce of all kinds, lime, too, and other bulky loads, for example.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw: I beg to second the Amendment.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) has provided us with an opportunity of discussing rural transport. I am absolutely certain that it is a most

important factor in the basic problem facing our countryside, and especially the isolated areas, at the present time. It might be thought on the face of it that in supporting him this afternoon I am planning with him some form of concerted attack from the North-West; but the true answer would lie, I think, in the fact that we both represent large rural constituencies which have within them many isolated districts and a very scattered population.
It is surely agreed that in the interests of the nation as a whole a high level of agricultural production must be maintained and that our rural way of life should be preserved. I am quite convinced that these aims can be achieved only if highly skilled men and their families can be persuaded to live in the country and work on the land. That end will be achieved only if modern amenities of life are provided in the country districts as soon as possible, and undoubtedly one of the basic requirements is reasonable transport facilities to the nearest shopping and entertainment centres.
There are people still who cling, somewhat nostalgically, I feel, to the old idea that country dwellers should not want to go to the towns, that they live in the country, that they have many assets there, and that there they should remain. To those people I would only say that that line of thought is completely out of touch with the feelings of modern families in our country districts, and, in particular, out of touch with the feelings of the wives and mothers who, naturally, wish to go to the towns; and I, for one, certainly can see no reason why they should not do so. If anyone doubts this feeling, then there is clear evidence in the fact that those isolated districts which have infrequent or, indeed, no transport facilities always suffer most from a shortage of labour. Therefore, I believe that reasonable public transport must be provided in these country districts.
This presents a very particular difficulty for both road operators and railways, because the distances involved are great and the potential passengers few. There is always a danger that rural services will be uneconomic to run. Today, the problem is further aggravated because, on the one hand, the costs of running buses and trains are always


mounting, and, on the other, the increasing use of cars and motor cycles inevitably decreases the number of passengers on public transport.
So much, then, for the problem. I am convinced that some Government action is essential if the situation is not to deteriorate further, but I recognise that there is no simple, magical or clear-cut solution.
My hon. Friend has dealt very fully with the rail side of the problem. I do not intend to weary the House by repeating his arguments on that subject. I merely want to say that I support what he has said. For the rest, I wish to confine myself to a few suggestions about road transport.
Surely any solution must be based on a sound knowledge of the economic facts if it is to have any hope of success. Therefore, I believe that it would help if the large nationalised bus undertakings were to publish a full report of their operations in the rural areas, for such a statement of fact would probably show that a reduction in the tax on petrol or diesel oil would give material assistance. However, like my hon. Friend, I am perfectly aware that this is not in itself the complete solution.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that this evidence would prove the need to consider the alternative to the large bus companies, namely, the small bus operators with one or two buses. I believe that the small men should be given every encouragement because they can provide the more personal type of service which I believe our country districts require. Furthermore, they often drive the buses themselves and are, therefore, not tied down to strict schedules.
For one thing, I should like to see more school bus contracts given to such people. A change should be made in the present regulations so that the school buses might be allowed to carry adults if the school children do not fill them. The present position is a little absurd. School buses in my constituency run half empty from many of the isolated villages to the towns. In some cases, the school bus may be the only bus from a village during the day. There are many adults who would wish to travel on those buses, but are not allowed to do so.
I would support the suggestion made, by my hon. Friend that the Post Office might give contracts for the carrying of mail to many of the outlying villages. Switzerland seems to have combined very successfully passenger and post functions and adds into the bargain a very musical and pleasant horn in the process. I do not see why we should not follow Switzerland's example in all those respects. Again, the British Transport Commission could help if it were to give contracts to the carrier-cart type of work. I believe that this might, at the same time, improve the delivery of goods in many of our country districts.
I remain quite unconvinced that the small bus owners are today using the right type of vehicle. One often sees them with buses carrying thirty-two passengers or more. There must surely be a case for a smaller vehicle which is more easily adaptable to different uses and is far more economical to run. I suggest that the Government might well spend some money on research into this subject. I believe that there is scope for it.
In putting forward these few suggestions, I appreciate only too well that the whole problem of rural transport is beset by many practical difficulties. Nor do I pretend for one moment that they can be solved by some magic action on the part of any Government. I merely hope that the debate will serve to impress upon my right hon. Friend, and upon the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whom we are all very pleased to see here listening to the debate, that there is a very real need for better transport services in the rural areas and a necessity for Government consideration and action if they are to be provided in the near future.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: May I, first, congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) both upon his speech and upon selecting this subject for debate. The problems in my area are very similar to those in his. The hon. Member showed evidence of his knowledge of the subject and of his sympathy with dwellers in rural areas. I entirely agree with him that the small operator may have an important part to play in the pattern of things, and I hope


that the Minister will pay heed to his plea on their behalf, and particularly with regard to the provision of a smaller type vehicle, about which I hope to say a few words later.
It is common ground in all parts of the House that the drift of the population from the rural areas during the past few years has been causing increasing concern. Hon. Members will appreciate that nowhere has the drift caused more acute concern than in rural Wales. A number of official inquiries into the problem have been conducted during the past few years, inquiries which have looked for the causes of depopulation and sought to find solution, but, despite all that the drift continues and I observe that even last year about 32,000 farm workers left the land. Surely this does not augur well either for the countryside or for the agricultural industry.
I should be going very wide of the Amendment if I attempted to discuss the causes of the drift from the rural areas, but in all the reports which have been published one factor has emerged, namely, that what is needed most of all in the countryside is improved amenities. These include better housing conditions, rural electrification, sanitation, piped water supplies, and improved roads. Important amongst all these amenities is the question of improved transport and road communications.
The Second Memorandum of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, published in 1953, based on investigations in a selected area in mid-Wales, had this to say:
… the bus and other transport services … are inadequate to the needs and convenience of the inhabitants. Inevitably this is a matter causing much dissatisfaction, especially to the rural workers' wives and families, and the view was strongly represented by the local authorities that improvement of these facilities was one of the essential requirements.
Hon. Members will, I am certain, agree that the housewife in the countryside, has a right to the same standard of life in all respects as her counterpart in the towns and cities. It seems clear that the younger generation in the countryside is protesting and that its protest is taking the form of emigration away from the countryside to the towns and cities.
Following the Memorandum of which I have spoken, the Government in November, 1953, issued a White Paper

entitled "Rural Wales", containing the observations, criticisms and recommendations of the Government upon the Memorandum. I must say that the White Paper was very disappointing; it made no recommendations whatever about rural transport. In its 1951 Election Manifesto, the Conservative Party made a specific promise that if it was returned to power, measures would be introduced by the Government to improve rural communications and road transport, but, so far, nothing has been done. I feel sure that the mover and seconder of the Amendment will feel disillusioned and disappointed with their own leadership in this matter.
No one would deny as, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who seconded the Amendment, said, that the question is fraught with great difficulty. The main question which we all ask when considering bus services in the rural areas is, up to what limit must operators run a service at a loss? Surely the point is that it is up to an operator to devise every possible means to provide a service wherever people need it. If we begin to talk of granting amenities to rural areas purely in terms of profit and loss, the rural areas will never get amenities. If we discussed the provisions of electricity, water and transport facilities to rural areas on the basis of a balance sheet which showed a profit, the more remote areas would get none of these amenities. Certainly, there would have been no rural electrification or rural roads if that had been the criterion. It is the paramount duty of operators to devise the most economical means of transport in the more remote areas.
The mover and seconder of the Amendment dealt with the suggestion of the small one-man operated bus. We are fortified in this by experts, for in the Spectator, on 13th January this year, I read a letter from Mr. R. M. Robbins, Chief Public Relations Officer of London Transport Executive, in which he said that the driver-conductor bus helps considerably to reduce the loss on un-remunerative services, so that clearly this type of vehicle has a contribution to make to the problem in our remote areas. It seems to me that the operators are very slow in putting this suggestion into operation.
We are told that the bigger bus companies are considering it and are undertaking research, but the small vehicle is very slow in making an appearance. I hope that the Minister will listen to the appeal of his hon. Friends and will treat the matter as one of urgency and see that this research is encouraged so that we may soon see this kind of bus plying the roads of our rural areas.
The position in my constituency is extremely serious and something will have to be done very soon. There, Crosville Motor Services, Limited, has an almost complete monopoly. It recently applied to the licensing authority to increase fares. The local authorities objected to the increase on the ground that the existing services did not meet the reasonable requirements of the people. The county council, seven district councils and 37 parish councils said that the present services were completely inadequate. In the whole area, only three parish councils expressed satisfaction with the existing services.
The licensing authority approved the increase in fares on the ground, presumably, that they had to be increased to meet mounting costs. Therefore, in Anglesey we have high fares, unsatisfactory services, and, in addition, we have poor roads. For we cannot consider this problem objectively unless, at the same time, we consider the roads, and particularly the Class II and Class III roads. In these rural areas we have a high proportion of Class III roads. Today, the poorer highway authorities are unable to maintain and repair their Class III roads properly.
I should like to quote again from the Memorandum of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, which states:
Many of the roads in such districts are not of suitable width or condition for use by buses, and in these circumstances extension of transport services in the more rural areas cannot be expected. The local authorities … were definitely of the opinion that unless better roads were available transport facilities were not likely to improve.
Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that a method must be devised by the Government of providing additional help to highway authorities to improve their Class III roads.
At present, grants are made on a percentage basis and I suggest that the

only proper way of dealing with the problem is to give the grants not on a percentage basis, but on a mileage basis. Hon. Members who consider this suggestion carefully will realise that it is far more equitable and would benefit the poorer areas in which there is a high percentage of Class III and unclassified roads.
To sum up, what is needed is, first, experimentation with a small conductor-driver bus, and secondly, the "dieselization" existing branch lines. One cannot hope for the reopening of an appreciable number of branch lines that have already been closed, but I think that if existing branch lines were dieselised they could be kept open and run economically. There is also the question of the improvement of Class III roads and, fourthly, better co-ordination between road and rail transport. Here again, the Government must be criticised for destroying the integration of road and rail transport. I cannot think that we shall ever find a permanent solution to this problem of rural transport until both road and rail transport are again in public hands. It seems that his party's policy of denationalisation of road transport has militated against what the hon. Member is seeking to achieve.
All these suggestions are, I think, reasonable and not over ambitious. They would help to put a stop to this unhappy drift from the land—something that we are all anxious to stop—and also to encourage the agricultural industry which is so vital to our economy. The tourist industry, which, in so many areas, makes an important contribution to our employment position, would also benefit. These are some suggestions which I hope the Minister will reflect and act upon.

4.22 p.m.

Captain L. A. L. Duncan: I should like to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on having the luck in the draw, as we are talking in terms of draws nowadays, and also on his choice of subject. I come from Scotland, and the Scottish problem in the rural areas is just as important as the problem in England or, as has been demonstrated by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), the problem in Wales.
The problem is twofold; it is partly a social problem and partly an agricultural one. Unless it is solved it will not only have social repercussions but it will have, what is more important, very great agricultural repercussions, to the disadvantage of agricultural production in this country.
I am glad to note, in passing, that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who deals with agriculture in Scotland, is here, because the subject will be of vital interest to him in securing a continually expanding agricultural production, particularly in the hill areas of Scotland.
After calling attention to
the problems of transport in rural areas,
the Amendment deals with three points. It asks the Government to review
the regulations and taxation affecting public transport;
then it asks the Government
to encourage technical development and experimental services;
and, finally, it asks the Government
to use their powers under … the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919".
It is a very comprehensive Amendment, but is none the worse for that.
What I have to say is roughly on the same lines as the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland. I do not want to go into the old controversy that we had earlier on on the subject of the closing of the Arboath—Forfar branch railway line, but we cannot discuss this subject without raising the closing of branch lines. All that I want to say on that today is this. If the British Transport Commission decides to close a branch line for passengers or for goods it is necessary for it to consider other methods of dealing with its traffic, both goods and passenger, before closing it, not solely with the object of saving money but to see how the life of that rural area will be affected and how it could be continued under alternative methods of locomotion.
One is the use of diesel rail cars. Wherever double-diesel rail cars have been tried—admittedly, they cannot be effective in all areas—they have been most successful. I understand that their cost of running is roughly one-third the cost of running equivalent steam trains. That is something. For us in the deep

rural areas it is surely not beyond the wit of man to devise a single-diesel rail car which will operate, may be, at one-third of the cost of the double-diesel rail car and thereby become an economic proposition. If after carrying out "technical development and experimental services," as suggested in the Amendment, nothing can be done with the branch line, something should be done with the line, either by selling it or offering it on lease to private enterprise and trying to get someone else to take on the job.
Here, there comes in the question of the Light Railways Act, 1896, under which someone might quite well run it as a tram line. Let us not be too careful of the people's comfort. Anyone travelling on some of the existing S.M.T. or Alexander's buses knows how uncomfortable they are. I do not think that we want so high a standard of chromium and plush, which has been referred to, as the Transport Commission seems to think. Cannot we have something much less elaborate but, none the less, something that will give service?
Then there is the further question of battery rail cars. In the Report of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, 1955, there is a suggestion that agreement has been reached with the railways to conduct an experiment with a battery rail car in an area in Scotland. I would ask my right hon. Friend where this is to be done. Has a battery rail car been produced? Has it been ordered? On what lines is it suggested that the experiment should be conducted? It would at least show, if we could get an answer to those questions, that the Transport Commission was in earnest, because I believe that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has offered very generous terms for battery cars and is itself very anxious to get this experiment launched with a view, perhaps, to extending it in other areas and selling more current at off peak hours to charge the batteries in the night time. This would be a good business proposition and, if successful, would also suit the travelling public.
I have the feeling that there is no real, positive drive to do something by the railways. They seem to be on the defensive against possible losses the whole time. We should try to make the Commission realise that it will go on making losses until it adopts a better attitude


towards the public in the matter of the service it provides. Even if it loses a little money upon experiments which may come to a bad end, that money will have been well spent. If enough experiments are made, some, at least, will be successful. The double-diesel experiment has already proved to be extremely successful.
A very difficult situation exists on the roads, partly due to the fact that so many private vehicles are now owned by farmers, forestry workers, and other country people. These vehicles are not necessarily available to the wives of their owners for shopping trips to the local town, or for journeys to the cinema. The problem is to some extent caused by the rising standard of living in the countryside. These two factors are making the effective and economical running of omnibus transport more and more difficult. The restriction in working hours and the higher pay for drivers and conductors are making it necessary to charge higher fares, and that in itself makes it more difficult for even the small bus entrepreneurs to make ends meet.
I strongly support the suggestions made for greater co-operation between the Post Office, the education authorities and the bus operators. In many areas, the Post Office takes the view that its sole duty is to get its letters to its customers at the earliest moment, and that nothing else matters. If people living in some of these sparsely populated areas were told that if they would not mind receiving their letters an hour or two later they could have a reasonable bus service, they would certainly agree to the suggestion and have their letters an hour or two later.
I believe that any child living more than three miles from his school is entitled to transport, and any child who goes to a senior school now is almost bound to be more than three miles away unless he happens to live in the town in which that school is situated. This transport bill falls upon the local education authority, and it must be a very heavy one. I should have thought that these education authorities could have been consulted in order to see whether they could save some of their ratepayers' money by helping to set up a privately

operated transport organisation which would provide a regular bus service, so that contract prices could be lowered' and rate payers' money saved.
If an authority has to run a special school bus and nobody else is allowed on it except school children, the education authority must be paying much more for that service than would be the case if it ran one in co-operation with the Post Office, and with the bus operator being allowed to take other passengers as well. I hope that this idea of co-operation between the various interests concerned in the organisation of transport in rural areas will be taken seriously into consideration by the Government.
I also hope that the regulations governing the construction of these vehicles will be considered. I am very glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) with regard to driver-conductor buses. The trouble is that in so many cases the roads are too narrow. It is no good the hon. Member complaining about the roads; the roads are there. We want the transport, and we want it years before the roads can be widened. We want the bus fitted to the roads, rather than the roads fitted to the bus. We want a small, 20-seater bus, with a narrower wheel base, which can run on the small roads. If regulations exist which make it impossible for the licensing authorities to license this type of bus I hope that the Minister of Transport will review those regulations and make it possible to construct a bus which can be used in these deep rural areas.
Although the Amendment refers to the need for certain matters to be investigated, I believe that my right hon. Friend should review the whole question of rural transport. Rural transport should be improved as the other amenities of the countryside—such as electricity and water supplies, and housing—have been improved. Transport is the one thing that is letting us down. I hope that my right hon. Friend will regard this Amendment as a demand from hon. Members on both sides of the House for a real review of the whole question of rural transport, in an endeavour to master this problem one way or another in the very near future, in the interests of agriculture and the social amenities of the countryside.

4.37 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on his luck in the Ballot and choosing for debate today the problem of rural transport. Those who have already spoken have been dealing with the problems in the more remote rural areas, but my constituency, although mainly industrial, also contains places which can be described only as rural, although they may not be a very great distance from a town. Residents in those areas sometimes suffer hardship because they have no adequate transport system. Some have no transport system at all.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may already know that the District Councils' Association for Scotland has been giving attention to this matter as it applies to the whole of Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has asked for something which I regard as of the greatest importance to the people living in these areas. He has asked the Minister of Transport—and I hope that he wants the Secretary of State for Scotland to assist his right hon. Friend—to carry out a review of existing transport facilities in rural areas as quickly as possible. If they carry out that review I am sure that both Ministers will find that the standard of transport facilities for most people living in rural areas is very much below that which any hon. Member would like to see.
During the last six weeks or so I have had brought to my attention two urgent problems in my constituency on the question of proper transport facilities. In the first instance, I took the matter up with the Scottish Motor Traction Company and I received the reply that I had rather expected to get, that is was quite impossible to provide transport facilities for the small rural area of Greenhill, near Cleland, in Lanarkshire. I have been in that area many times and it seems to me that the problem of the womenfolk in such areas, a problem touched upon by the hon. Member for Westmorland, is made much more difficult owing to the lack of transport facilities.
The women in that hamlet—for that is about all that one can call it—have a long distance to walk before they can board a bus to take them to the town

where they do their main shopping. It is true that in that area, as in most other rural areas, the important household needs are supplied by visiting vans, but, in many instances, the womenfolk find it essential to go to the towns to do some of their shopping.
In the winter, particularly, these people find the greatest difficulty through not having what I think we all regard as something perfectly natural, decent transport facilities for shopping purposes. These women, who have to walk quite a distance to board a bus, are sometimes soaked to the skin before they reach the bus. They have their shopping to do and then have the journey back with the long walk at the end of it. In these modern days that seems to me very wrong indeed.
It is not surprising that in an area such as that, and more so in the remote rural areas, wives are continually asking their husbands to find jobs in the town. That is bad from the national economic point of view. Therefore, whether we are examining this problem from the point of view of facilities and amenities for the housewife or from the national economic point of view, it seems to me that where the Minister or the Government can help it is of the greatest importance that they should give all the help they possibly can.
At the beginning of last week, I received a petition signed by quite a number of my constituents in another part of North Lanark, an area including Whiterigg and Airdriehill. They live in an area from which many people have been moved by the county council to one of the bigger villages. Up to that time, the people who are left in the area had enjoyed quite a good bus service, but now they are told by the bus company that it is no longer economic to run the service which they had enjoyed for so long and which has now been taken from them. The petition asked that this service should be returned to them.
Both the hon. Member for Westmorland and the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus spoke about the lack of imagination on the part of the railway company. I think that there is also a lack of imagination on the part of the bus companies and that they ought to operate not only the profitable runs, but also the unprofitable runs.

Mr. Vane: I think that in England that does happen. If one approaches the licensing authorities for permission to operate a profitable run, one is most unlikely to get it unless unprofitable runs are also being operated. Therefore, I do not think that bus companies in England can be charged with that.

Miss Herbison: That may be the case, but there is no onus on the company which may be operating many profitable runs to take on an uneconomic run. It does not work both ways. I feel that what might be called a negative advisory power, if one can talk about an advisory power, ought to operate the other way, and that if it did it would help all the areas which have so far been discussed in this debate.

Captain Duncan: Is the bus company S.M.T. or Alexander's?

Miss Herbison: In the one instance it is the Central S.M.T. and in the other, I understand, it is the S.M.T. I know that in the first instance it is the Central S.M.T., but I am not so sure about the second one.
I am not concerned whether the companies are nationalised or not; I am concerned about the comfort and the facilities available to my constituents. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Transport to examine the matter to see whether they can in any way help whatever company it may be to provide facilities not only for the people in the two rural areas which I have mentioned, but in rural areas generally throughout the country.
I feel that a smaller type of bus such as I have seen many times in rural areas on the Continent would very adequately serve the needs particularly of the two places I have mentioned, and of many other rural areas. I appeal to all the bus companies affected to give serious consideration to the question of providing smaller buses which would be more economic to run. I believe that if a smaller type of bus was supplied it would meet the needs of the people in whom I am interested and could, perhaps, be profitably run.
I support the suggestion that in rural areas there is no necessity to have both a bus driver and a bus conductor. I know that we have to take into account

the question of safety and that that is one of the reasons advanced against operating without a conductor. But in Continental countries I have seen one man acting both as driver and conductor. It may be that we must consider very seriously this question of safety in the closely built-up areas, but I do not think that such strong reasons could be adduced for not dispensing with the conductor in rural areas.

Mr. Vane: Would the hon. Lady agree that, apart from safety, there is the question of speed of turn-round, which discourages certain bus companies from running with one man, but that, in the rural areas, there seems to be far more to be gained than lost, and that instead of losing money in the long run there would be a saving? If the hon. Lady knows New York, she will know what is lost as well as gained when trying to run one-man buses in big towns.

Miss Herbison: I do know New York. I have been on a bus in New York, but what applies to a city the size of New York certainly does not apply, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, either to the two rural areas of which I spoke or to all the rural areas to which he referred. I am in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman when he suggests that what might be lost would be gained in other ways. These are the very considerations to which I think the bus companies ought to pay the greatest attention.
There is only one further point with which I should like to deal. It may be that I am out of order in bringing it up, but I suggest that the amenities of rural transport should take into account the provision of shelter for people who are waiting for buses. This, again, is a question which the District Councils' Association of Scotland has raised on a number of occasions, and it is a matter which I have also raised with the Secretary of State for Scotland. There was a Private Bill on this subject dealing with England and Wales which was passed by this House, but which we could not have applied to Scotland because I understand that the local authorities in Scotland were not willing to undertake the additional expense.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—and I understand


that this is a matter for him, and not so much for the Minister of Transport—will give some consideration to this matter, because it is a question of giving what may be termed a minimum of facilities to our people who live in the rural areas, facilities that are taken completely for granted by those who live in our built-up areas.
I hope that, as a result of this debate and the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Westmorland, there will be a real attempt by the Ministers concerned to do something at once for the benefit of the people who live in rural areas.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate, which follows upon one which I myself initiated a short time ago. First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on raising the matter. I only hope that as a result of this debate which, as usual in these debates, has produced almost unanimous support from both sides of the House, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who has recently taken on this job and has brought a fresh and vigorous mind to the task, will take up this very important problem and give it his personal attention.
When my right hon. Friend considers the views expressed on this occasion, and those expressed on three previous Adjournment debates, on two previous Motions and on a Bill, I hope that he will remember that on each occasion, although we were not quite unanimous about the methods to be adopted to surmount the difficulties, we have all been agreed that this problem of rural transport is one of great importance to this country.
I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been here listening to a great deal of this debate, because I think he realises that if we are to get the increased agricultural production which, in my opinion, is essential for the survival of the country in order to close the trade gap, we have to maintain our rural population; and we shall not maintain that rural population unless they are provided with the facilities to reach the towns or where-ever they want to go.
After all, when one is engaging a man for work in a remote district, one knows perfectly well that the deciding factor with him is not the amount of the wage that he will receive, but the desire and opinion of his wife as to whether he should go into that area to work. Therefore, I hope that as a result of this debate, we shall now get some action, and I suggest an inquiry at which evidence can be given, and at which those who give that evidence can be cross-examined on the figures which they put forward, because in these debates we have had such an extraordinary difference of opinion about the costings of running branch lines that I think it is time we had some investigation.
Let me give one instance to show the extraordinary divergence of opinion among different people who are working on figures and not on facts. My right hon. Friend will find in his office a letter from the British Transport Commission to the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to some figures which I put forward, which were given to me by an expert on this matter, about the running of a 10-mile branch line in my own constituency. The cost of the track maintenance was given by the expert who advised me as £600, but the figure given in the letter to the Parliamentary Secretary was £3,000. When I looked up that letter to remind myself of its contents for this debate, I saw that it stated this line would require four men for track maintenance at a cost of £3,000. I do not know that the Transport Commission is quite so generous in the payment of its railwaymen as to give them £750 a year. When I was challenged about the accuracy of my statement, the report of the Transport Commission said that that figure included materials as well, but, when I read the next paragraph, I found that it stated this this figure excluded any materials that were necessary. When one finds this divergence of opinion on costings, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is about time that we made an attempt to investigate these figures.
I have often been asked whether I should agree that branch lines should be run at a loss. I do not think they should be run at a great loss, but, when we remember that the omnibus companies today are running portions of their services at a loss, we cannot think why the Transport Commission, with its main line traffic


and all the best traffic, should not also run some of its branch lines even if that involves a slight loss. I do not think that that loss can be anything like as great as they try to make out. The Commission must realise that the closing of these branch lines is having a very serious effect. They close one of these branch lines, and it has an immediate effect on the next section.
I have in mind the 30 miles of line running from the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) to Worcester. The portion in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman opposite is completely closed, and the next portion, running from Leominster, is closed to passengers, but still runs a goods service. The next portion has been closed for three years, and the result of all this closing is that the last section from Bromyard to Worcester now has a curtailed service. It is quite obvious that in this matter of closing branch lines, one thing leads to another. If the bus companies were to close down a few miles of route in the middle stretch of the country because they were unremunerative, I do not know where we should get, but that is what is happening at present in the railway system. I do not think that sufficient experiments are being made in the running of branch lines by people who know their job and who make sure that the costings are indeed accurate.
The argument which has been put against the introduction of railcars will not stand up to investigation. In the report of the Railway Organisation Committee, there is still talk of railway stations being placed at the wrong places because of landowners not being willing to allow stations to be built on their land. That was the 19th century problem, but we now realise that on these branch lines railway stations need not necessarily be provided, because all that is wanted are places at which passengers may be picked up or set down.
Another problem is that the railway crossing keeper is out of date. In times when we have traffic running on the main roads at 50 or 60 miles an hour, controlled by traffic lights, such lights could be operated at points where the railway crosses the road, and could be brought into action by the railbus approaching the crossing and put out of action

again after the bus has passed the crossing. That would not involve a great deal of expense in the running of small branch lines.
The Transport Commission continually talks about the cost of big diesel units. We are not referring to big diesel units. We desire something to replace the old carrier's cart which used to take the women and their goods and chattels to market. We consider that there exists a rail car which would meet that requirement. I have had sent to me by the Railway Development Association particulars of a rail bus which is operated on the Sligo railway, in Ireland. It is operated on a steel-rubber wheel. In fact, it is a bus which is being converted at the cost of £100. The wheel is known as a Howden Meredith wheel, and is a combination of steel and rubber which will stand up to wear. Rubber on steel will not stand up to wear, but this combination has been in operation for about twenty years. If they can do that in Ireland, I should hope that something similar might be done in this country.
It has been said that this is not operated on the Continent, but only last week I had a letter from a man serving in Germany who says that out there the railways seem to be flourishing. Branch lines abound and on most are rail cars which are run very efficiently. That is what is being done in Germany, and they are doing the same in France and Sweden. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that an investigation should be made to discover what may be done here. We desire something between the old carriers' cart and the very fine diesel cars which are fitted up with all sorts of comforts. Such cars are not wanted in the country districts, or at least they are not necessary. The people in those areas require something to get them from one point to another in reasonable comfort.
At present, in some remote districts women have to walk two or three miles to a bus stop in all weathers, and often they have to wear their wet clothes all day while they are in the town. Then they are faced with the same walk home, and after such a journey I imagine that their husbands hear something about it. They may suggest that it was time their husbands found a job somewhere else, where transport facilities are better. In view of the unanimity which exists among


all hon. Members about this problem, I ask my right hon. Friend to see whether something can be done to meet it.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. William Ainsley: I am glad of the opportunity to support this Amendment. If the Government do not face this problem of rural transport now, they will eventually be forced by necessity to do something about it. I come from a constituency which covers 262 square miles. The County of Durham is usually looked upon as entirely a mining community, but I can assure hon. Members that in Durham we have some of the loveliest scenery in the country.
In my constituency, there are two rural areas and in one this problem has been troubling my constituents for a number of years. Two or three years ago the British Transport Commission, after protracted negotiation and heated arguments, decided that the Weardale branch railway line should be closed. One argument advanced in favour of that operation was that a reasonable and adequate bus service existed. I concede that people today are inclined to use the bus service rather than the rail service, because it may be more convenient to walk to a bus stop than to the railway station. But, today, bus proprietors are finding great difficulty in maintaining an adequate service.
In my opinion, the only solution would be to have a uniformed method of rail and road transport. I say to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that when they felt it advisable to denationalise road transport, that aggravated the position. With the increased cost of petrol and oil, higher maintenance charges and increased wages, it is becoming an uneconomic proposition so far as private bus companies are concerned.

Mr. Baldwin: Would not the hon. Member agree that at present many bus companies are under the control of the Transport Commission, but no better service is given?

Mr. Ainsley: In Durham, some years ago, the chairman of the county council wished to promote a Bill to provide municipal transport for the whole county, and it was hon. Members opposite who prevented that from being done. It would have proved a solution to our problem in Durham.
The bus services operating in Wear-dale are privately owned. I am not complaining about these people if they are running at a loss, but we have a responsibility to see that a social service is maintained in the rural areas, and that presents a problem. For many years I served on the county council and before becoming a Member of this House I had the honour of being chairman of that council. When dealing with the question of transport at a meeting at Newcastle, we found that monopoly firms running services in the highly industrial urban areas were seeking to lop off the unremunerative runs.
It was stated yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) that one of these firms had accumulated huge profits year after year. But these firms are not anxious to maintain rural passenger services, though they wish to keep the more remunerative runs and that is a problem which arises because private monopolistic firms do not realise that they should provide a social service.
As one who has served on a county education committee, I realise the statutory obligation upon an education authority to convey children to school when they live over three miles from their school. In my constituency, we cannot obtain tenders for this work. Usually, we have to go to a farmer and ask him to convey the children to school. That is done at a price which he fixes, and it must be done, because we have a statutory obligation to see that the children are educated. The divisional education officer is going round remote areas and begging people to help to convey children so that they can have the education that we all desire them to have.
Recently, I was asked to attend a meeting in Newcastle, which had been called to deal with the question of rural transport. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present, but I notice from the report that I have here that the meeting was attended by representatives of the county councils, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, parish councils, rural community councils, the Rural District Councils' Association, the Transport and General Workers Union, and women's institutes.
That meeting passed this resolution:
The following organisations having fully considered the present circumstances of transport in the rural areas of the North-East of England are convinced that the recent deterioration in transport services is likely to continue to the detriment of the social and economic conditions of the area, and that there must also be, if there is not already, an adverse effect on agricultural production.
I was talking to an executive officer of the Ministry of Agriculture some time ago, and he astounded me by stating that in this country well over 1 million acres of agricultural land had gone out of cultivation since 1870. Can we wonder that the whole of our economy is upset when we allow the rural areas to deteriorate?
I have here a letter which I received last week from a lady living in the rural area to which I have referred. She is a school teacher, and she has to find her way to a school in the urban area. Here, we are threatened with the withdrawal of the early bus service, which means that this lady will not be able to get to school. That is the problem that we are facing in the whole of Weardale. Business people who want to make contact with the main line at Darlington in order to get to London have to travel almost all night before so that they can contact the main line, or else hire private taxis.
Therefore, we have a drift away of the population from the rural areas. Between the two General Elections, from 1951 to 1955, over 2,000 electors have left my constituency. They have gone to swell the problem which is now being faced in Birmingham, Coventry and Greater London. Some time ago I asked that I might have a conversation with the Chairman of the London County Council because I realised that Durham and London were facing the same problems, but in reverse.
I am glad that hon. Members opposite are now talking of planning. We must plan. That is where the present Government have gone astray. They have talked of freedom at the expense of planning when dealing with the economic conditions of the country.
There is a tremendous responsibility upon the Government to bring to the rural areas the social amenities that are now being enjoyed in the towns, cities and urban areas. I shall never be happy until

the same facilities that are afforded to the children in the urban areas are given to the boys and girls in rural areas, in order that they may develop the talents that are theirs. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) who comes from a neighbouring constituency to mine, because the problems he faces are the same as those in Northumberland.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right in emphasising the danger to the countryside arising from this continual drift from the land, which is now assuming very large proportions indeed. I find from the latest figures that in the last five years more than 100,000 regular farm-workers, male and female, have left the land. That is a very serious problem for the future of agriculture, because not only have these workers left the land but those who remain are an ageing population; the young men are just not coming into the industry.
From what has been said already, it is clear that it is much easier to state this problem than to find a solution to it. Nevertheless, there is a true saying that "where there's a will there's a way", and I hope that my right hon. Friend when he replies will show that in this respect the Government have the will to do something. We in Britain are always apt to do too little and to do it too late; and certainly in the post-war years we have done far too little with public transport in the rural areas. If we do not look out we shall be too late again, because the drift from the land will have become an absolute spate.
The problem of rural transport is common not only to Britain but to many countries in Europe as well as to Canada and the United States. Paradoxically enough, the problem has largely arisen since the advent of the internal combustion engine. It is the private motor car which is the main enemy of public transport. It is the private motor car which is making public transport, be it rail or road, unremunerative at the present time. We must face the fact that as more private cars come on to the road, so the problem of public transport will become still more difficult to solve


Despite the private car, public transport is just as vital to life in the rural areas as housing, electricity, telephones and all the other amenities. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has already pointed out, we have in these post-war years made considerable progress in providing amenities in the rural areas. It is only public transport which has not improved; indeed, it is deteriorating. I do not suppose that any of these services, be they electricity, telephones, banks or post offices, are paying propositions in the rural areas, but the organisations concerned run them, nevertheless, because they realise that they are providing an essential service for these areas. They take a broad view—they take the rough with the smooth and the unremunerative services are carried by the remunerative services.
If that happens in other services, I cannot see why it should not also happen in transport. I would add that in housing, or in water and sewerage schemes, the Government are prepared to give financial grants, of 50 per cent. or more, in order to help to provide these services. I do not see why some financial assistance should not also be given by the Treasury to provide adequate public transport facilities, since it will be useless to spend large sums of public money in taking public services to the rural areas if, when they arrive there, we find that the population of the area has largely disappeared and we are left with a few ageing people who have been stranded there. Such a policy does not make sense, nor is it a paying proposition from the national point of view.
On the contrary, I believe that a small Exchequer subsidy could make the whole difference between maintaining some of these services in being and, on the other hand, seeing them disappear. Many transport services, both by rail and by bus, have been withdrawn in recent years, and many more are in danger of withdrawal in the near future, unless some financial assistance can be provided. In my view, very slight assistance would make the difference between maintaining these services and losing them.
The people who are operating these services, whether they are employees of the British Transport Commission or employees of private operators, are extremely

anxious to see them maintained. They do not want to see them disappear. Nor do I believe that the operators, who, in these remote rural areas, are often small men, want to make big profits. All they want to do is, by one means or another, to keep their heads above water.
Several hon. Members have already emphasised that we in the country areas are not asking for luxury services, either in the equipment provided or in the frequency of the services. We are asking simply for any kind of service to be maintained so that the people in these rural areas may have some link with the outside world. In my view a large part of this problem is the psychological question as to whether people feel cut off or not.
British Railways are continually talking about the wonderful new twin diesel units which they are at long last providing on branch lines. These units are certainly good. Indeed, they are far too good, because they are costing £25,000 a piece. What we want in the remote areas is not a unit costing £25,000 but some kind of bus or rail car costing £2,000 or £3,000—and I am quite convinced that such a car could be provided.
I believe that British Railways have not the remotest idea of what is really required by the rural population. When they talk about the rural population they muddle them up with the suburban population. With a little more imagination and enterprise British Railways could provide small or light-weight diesel cars to cater for the really remote rural areas.
Since nationalisation in 1948, British Railways have closed down 1,500 miles of branch line railways. They tell us that by doing so they are saving just over £1 million a year. That sounds all very well, but what has been the cost to the countryside of the removal of those vital services? What has been the cost to country folk? It is my belief that if British Railways had acted in an enterprising way they could probably have saved £500,000, even though they had kept those branch lines open, if they had reduced their staffs and cut out some of the unnecessary extravagance. I say that if the other £500,000 had been provided by the Treasury, it would have been money well spent from the national point of view.
I readily admit that public transport in the remote rural areas will never pay. To use a vulgarism, used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, there is not a cat in hell's chance of public transport facilities paying in the rural areas. But I believe that by imagination and by enterprise and initiative the losses might be greatly reduced, and I am convinced that it is in the national interest that the Government should devise some means by which the services in those areas can be retained, even if that should mean that the Treasury must make up the balance.
I commend this Amendment to the House and would say to the Minister, in the words of an old Chinese proverb:
Hasten, the hour is later than you think.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), who moved the Amendment, can be satisfied with its reception this afternoon. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about the several suggestions which have been made. Personally, I was much taken up with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) about subsidising transport in the rural areas. Provided that subsidy is given for the sake of transport in the rural areas, I would raise no objection to it.
The Amendment
views with concern the difficulties facing both British Railways and omnibus proprietors.
While I agree with that comment, I am concerned with the difficulty of my constituents in getting any transport at all. Recently, there was published "The Mid-Wales Investigation Report", in paragraph 106 of which it is stated that several complaints have been received about the curtailment of bus services. That is true, and I have expressed my hope that at some time we may have a debate on that Report, in which emphasis would have to be laid not only on the curtailment of transport facilities in rural districts but also on the advocacy of more transport facilities, of which there are at present none in some places, except perhaps on market days. If we want younger people and others to remain in the countryside we must provide transport facilities.
Last week, at a meeting of the South Wales Branch of the Rural District Councils' Association, great concern was expressed at the fact that these services in the countryside were diminishing to a great extent. An extraordinary resolution was passed calling attention to this and asking that special terms should be allowed to secure and maintain bus services. Imagine that coming from a conference of South Wales rural district councils! I am sure that they discussed this matter with keen advocacy of the case for better facilities at present.
One of the daily papers commented, "No bus. They leave home." That is true. Not very far from the town of Brecon, where local authority houses have been built, local authorities have found it difficult to persuade people to take these houses because there are no transport facilities to the nearest market town.
The Minister should, therefore, look at the suggestion made by hon. Members opposite for an inquiry into this problem. There are areas in my constituency with no bus facilities at all, and I know of a case in which girls have to cadge a ride about ten miles in order to get to Builth Wells to their work. We are always pleading for something to be done about these problems in the countryside.
District councils in Mid-Wales are always agitating for more services, but they cannot agitate now. All they can do is to try to stop bus operators from closing services, when applications are made for increases of fares or anything of that kind are resisted. I compliment the district councils on the fact that they will not allow services to be closed down. The tendency is for bus operators to take away the service altogether and to make the situation very much worse. I hope that the Minister will look at the situation in Mid-Wales and South Wales and find out how many licences have been withdrawn during the last twelve months. I hope that he will do what he possibly can to prevent that situation arising.
There is the gradual disappearance of the small bus operators. It is extraordinary how it is done. There has been a tendency—a good one—for local education authorities to transport children to secondary and grammar schools. The result is that in Radnorshire and Brecknockshire a large sum of money is paid out annually for transport services which


can only he used for school children. I wish it were possible for the authorities to use it to take some of the parents to market as well. No one else can do it, even if the people have to stay an hour more than they should in the markets. We should use these bus services, if they are not run for the sake of profit, in order to make arrangements for people to come from these areas.
In the Mid-Wales counties some bus operators have gone out of existence when big firms have come along. The big firms cut down on the tenders until they get a monopoly of the services by squeezing out the small operators and then they increase their tender prices and make matters difficult for the local authorities. I hope that the Minister will look at these things.
I have intervened in the debate purely to support the Amendment, in the interests not only of bus operators but of constituents in the areas affected. If I make my protest it is not against nationalisation; my hon. Friends should make no mistake about that. It is because greater consideration should be given to small branch lines and every facility should be given to people in the areas before a branch line is closed down in favour of services by bus operators. It it very important that branch lines should be maintained.
I wish the Amendment every success. I believe that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has a Bill on the stocks on this subject, to which there has been opposition from this side of the House. I can quite understand it, but I wish our people would raise no more objections so that the Bill can get its Second Reading and be discussed in Committee. Something better in rural transport would help a large number of the people whom I represent in this House.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The problems of transport in rural areas are great and growing and, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the principal reason why people choose one form of transport rather than another is not greater speed but cheapness or convenience. If the service is very cheap people will put up with considerable inconvenience in order to use it, but in most cases

they will plump for convenience and will be prepared to pay higher prices for greater convenience.
For historical reasons, it is inevitable in present circumstances that this test of convenience should now work to the disadvantage of British Railways. About one hundred years ago when we first built our railways the Railway Bills were opposed by a number of vested interests, not only of landowners but of corporations, who did not see the advantage of railways. The result is that railways are frequently not built from one town to another, but to a point which is sometimes a mile or two outside each town. That was done deliberately when the railways were constructed to keep them away from certain places for amenity reasons.
That did not matter in early days when the cheapness of rail travel was an advantage compared with the high cost of going long distances or taking heavy loads by horse traffic. The public did not mind the extra inconvenience of going from the village to the inconveniently situated railway station at the back of beyond. Later, when motor transport came back to people's own doorsteps in the towns and villages, they then preferred road transport to going to the railway station.
Things have now gone one stage further. Convenience is now not merely a matter of starting from a particular place, but starting at a particular time. Many people in rural areas find it more convenient to have their own vehicle rather than to wait at the street corner for a bus or to get goods ready for the lorry service at a particular time. Although some of us might not think so from the complaints that we get, many rural communities have considerably improved their financial position in recent years. Good luck to them. It is now common for people to be able to afford vehicles of their own, either motor cars or vans; so—although this is not a matter for complaint—it is a serious factor in rural transport that a large proportion of the rural population now possesses transport of its own, thereby lessening the load factor both on railways and buses.
Let us, first, consider railways. I understand that about 80 million train-miles a year are run by stopping steam


trains on British Railways, much of it in the rural areas. There are only about 5 million train-miles loaded moderately well with about 125 passengers per train. The balance can be divided—although the figures cannot be considered final—between 45 million train-miles poorly loaded with passengers and about 30 million miles very poorly loaded, with about 20 passengers or fewer per train. I do not put these figures forward as completely accurate, but they show that many stopping steam-trains, whether on branch or on main lines ought, from ordinary economical considerations, to be removed. They are a heavy drain on the revenue of the British Transport Commission.
To withdraw them, however, would often give rise to human problems, because although it is true that many people in rural areas have motor cars and vans, there are many who do not. There are also many for whom it is not convenient to use bus services. Those services may not have the same facilities for carrying luggage or parcels as are provided on trains, and a change in the service might put people to great inconvenience.
The old main line companies had to deal with this problem. Although they closed branch lines from time to time, it is to their credit and to that of the nationalised concern that they have been reluctant to withdraw train services on branch lines or stopping trains on main lines. Because of the human factor, they have probably been more reluctant than they should have been for strictly economic reasons. Therefore, this is a real problem and the best that can be done is to make such efforts as are possible to reduce the cost of the services.
References have been made to the twin-unit diesel, which is a considerable improvement and makes a substantial saving in cost. I am not wholly satisfied, however, that it is not possible to find a fly-weight diesel—that is a diesel car very much lighter than the twin-unit diesel—which would be very much cheaper to run. It is the actual cost of running a train that matters, because if the British Transport Commission is prepared to meet the cost of maintenance of the track and the stations, that cost in respect of stopping trains is very often covered

by the through trains. Therefore, if the actual cost of running a train is reduced, it becomes a more practicable proposition to run a service.
I am not satisfied that everything that could be done has been done to find a flyweight diesel of lighter weight and cheaper construction than the diesels which are in service. Many attempts have been made in that direction on the Continent. It is said that there are unsatisfactory features to some of them, but more might be done in that direction. Nor am I satisfied that as much as possible has been done to reduce excessive maintenance on some of our branch lines, either by Light Railway Orders or otherwise. It ought to be possible to run some of these lines without a great deal of the maintenance work that now takes place. From my experience as a former railway solicitor, I cannot understand why Section 68 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, dealing with accommodation works for adjoining owners is still law and has not been amended. I have raised this matter before in the House.
The Section has many surprising results. One is that it compels the railways to maintain an elaborate eight-wire fence to keep out the cattle of adjoining owners. No other authority has to undertake such a liability, and one still sees gangs of men winding up the wire of eight-wire fencing where nobody else ever dreams of having such a thing. If this is a question of passenger safety it is difficult to understand, because there are many other railway companies in the world which do not have to provide fencing of this elaborate nature. This is a small point, but there are others of that kind with which the railways are burdened and which should be looked into.
Whenever a branch line is closed, it is necessary to provide an alternative service, and the British Transport Commission goes to considerable lengths to see that there is an alternative service. Nearly always there is a service of some sort. The idea that a service on a branch line can be withdrawn without co-operation from a bus company is very much exaggerated. It is not a question of nationalisation or denationalisation.
One hon. Member seemed to imply that there were special difficulties in dealing with companies which were not under the


control of the British Transport Commission. The vast majority of bus companies operating in the rural areas are 100 per cent. owned by the Commission. But whether it is a nationalised bus, if one may use that term, or one belonging to some other group in which the Commission has also an interest, there has not been any great difficulty in finding an alternative service. However, where there is an alternative service, it is often not so convenient because, as I have said, buses cannot carry as much luggage as can be carried by train.
The buses also are in difficulties, whether nationalised or not nationalised. Although it is quite true that some bus services are run at a loss—and all bus companies have done that at one time or another—the margin of loss today is very much greater than it used to be. Before the war, the margin of loss was about 1d. to 2d. a mile on an unremunerative service and, on a 1,000-mile week, that represented a loss of £200 a year on a bus. That was not too serious a loss for a substantial company to carry, but now the loss may be anything from 6d. to 1s. a mile. On a 1,000-mile week the loss on a bus may be up to £1,300 a year, which is a much more serious proposition for a bus company.
It is not correct to say that a smaller bus is the solution to the problem. It may be in a few places, but only a very few. I cannot speak for Westmorland or the North of Scotland, although I have been in both, but throughout the West Country, and particularly Cornwall, which I have the honour to represent, there is still a substantial number of people who want to travel at particular times on a Saturday or a market day or in the morning or the evening. It is not right to complain that a large bus is running half empty for the greater part of the day, because at peak periods a smaller bus would be useless. A second bus would have to be run which would make it more expensive than running a big bus more or less empty half the time.
Nor is a postal bus or van the solution. I remember travelling, I think in 1931, in a post van from the village of Reay, which is very near the site of the atomic reactor at Dounreay, to Melvech. It was the ordinary form of transport at that time. There were two or three seats at the front of the van and people used

that mode of travel, but in the majority of cases that would be unsuitable. Most people want their mail delivered as early as possible and they are not prepared to wait several hours until a bus is ready to run for the convenience of passengers. What is more, the Post Office has to think about security. It is all very well to carry a few mail bags at the back of a bus, but if there are large quantities of mail and parcels the Post Office would be worried about theft. Incidentally, mail travels at a cheap rate, so the bus companies do not make much out of it.
The best thing would be to have a reduction in the tax on fuel, especially on Derv, which is taxed at the rate of 250 per cent., much higher than any Purchase Tax. I appreciate that this is not the appropriate debate in which to discuss that matter, but it would help if some such reduction could be made.
I do not like the last two lines of this Amendment. They seem to imply that subsidies should be paid for the improvement of services. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) suggested that the proposals should be limited to experiments for improving services, but some other hon. Members seemed to take that to mean a general subsidy for transport.
That could not be accepted. There must be a limit to the number of general subsidies, and the mere fact that some localities are finding it difficult to obtain adequate transport is insufficient reason for handing out a general subsidy to provide facilities which people do not happen to have. It would be better to concentrate on seeing what we can do to improve the existing facilities. If this matter is tackled with vigour and imagination, and if everything possible is done to maintain and to improve the transport of rural areas, I think it will be found that an efficient service can be provided.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I join with other hon. Members on both sides in congratulating the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on giving us an opportunity today to discuss the important matter of rural transport. We do not discuss that question here as often as we should, but at the same time we must not get it out of proportion. Transport for rural areas has been a


problem for many years. It is aggravated today largely because many more farmers, owing to the prosperity of the agricultural industry, have been able to provide their own forms of transport. It has also been aggravated by the economic problems confronting the transport industry.
I should not like to feel that anything we say here today would be a reflection upon the work being done by British Railways, which I think have done a fine job under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. It is true that branch lines have had to be closed, but that was inevitable as a result of the problems confronting British transport today. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) said rightly that before a branch line is closed British Railways satisfy themselves that there will be reasonably adequate alternative bus services for the passengers concerned. Indeed, Ministers of Transport have taken care that the British Transport Commission, and British Railways in particular, have found alternative transport facilities to the branch lines that have been closed in certain areas as a result of the cost of transport.
Suggestions have been made about the use of the postal mail. I agree with the hon. Member for Truro that postal mail would not reduce the financial problems of rural transport. There have been suggestions about using smaller types of vehicles, but there again the problem is not as simple as some hon. Members appear to think. The hon. Member for Truro said quite rightly that there are vehicles available which are required for peak traffic. If, however, we had a series of small vehicles for off-peak hours not only would the operator need reserve vehicles for use in case of breakdown, but would then have to replace the small vehicles by larger ones at periods of peak traffic. I doubt very much, therefore, whether there would be any saving in the long run.
There was another suggestion that school buses should be used more extensively. We all know that the education authority has responsibility under certain circumstances for transporting children from their homes to school. They do this in two ways. First, where a transport service is available the education authority issues vouchers. Secondly,

where there is not, it tries to arrange for private contract. I know a little about the problems of the rural education authorities, and I agree with the hon. Member who said that it is difficult to get people to tender for the transportation of children because this is regarded as uneconomic. Hon. Members who have suggested using the school service facilities for the alleviation of the problem of rural transport have forgotten that the vehicles only run at given times, when the schools are open. So I do not believe that the school transport service can make a substantial contribution to the solution of this serious problem.
Frankly, we are up against a problem of unremunerative services and how they can be provided. It is as simple as that—if it is simple at all. The question is, who is to provide unremunerative services? Reference has been made to the licensing authorities. All those interested in, and associated with public transport, know that for many years the licensing authorities have been urging and insisting that transport undertakings should not only provide services for the remunerative areas but should also provide a certain amount of service for the country areas and the uneconomic routes. Licensing authorities throughout the country have insisted that transport undertakings should take a reasonable share of unremunerative services.
The problem today is that the cost of transport has become so heavy and we have so largely come to the end of increases in fares that something has to be done to meet the industry's economic difficulties and to put it on the basis of being able to provide reasonable services. I support any hon. Member who urges that the countryside should be provided with the best possible services which it is economical for transport undertakings to provide.
Reference has been made to the improved social conditions and the better facilities of the countryside. The Post Office is providing telephones for farm houses at a cost which is largely borne by the more thickly populated areas. That is right and proper. The cost of electrification of the countryside is met in a similar way and, as hon. Members will agree, it is proceeding by leaps and bounds.

Mr. Sidney Dye: Is the hon. Member not aware that in the scattered rural districts consumers either have to make a capital contribution towards the cost of the installation of electricity, or have to pay an annual line rent to meet the extra cost?

Mr. McLeavy: I agree that there are certain additional charges, but what I was saying was substantially true. There is a loss even when farmers have paid the extra cost, and that loss has to be borne by people in more thickly populated areas.
I know that this problem of the cost of transport has been a matter which previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have had under review, and I want to recall a speech made by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Lord Privy Seal, in a broadcast last summer. He said:
The reduction of taxation on petrol and diesel oil occupies a high priority in my thoughts.
I know that over the past three or four years passenger transport undertakings have been strongly representing to the Treasury that the incidence of the fuel oil tax should he reduced.
As the hon. Member for Truro said, the cost of the tax on Derv is 2s. 6d. per gallon, which represents about 240 per cent. of the basic price. That has a tremendous effect upon the running costs of transport. The remarkable thing is that only transport pays the tax. Farmers who use fuel oil in their vehicles, industry and the railways do not pay the tax. As a matter of fact, the transport industry uses only about one-sixth of the total production of Derv.
So that the House may appreciate the importance of this fact, I should like to quote the example of the City of Bradford, where fuel oil costs represent 3·89d. for every mile operated. I am sure that that figure could be much higher in rural areas. The problem is whether the Government will abolish fuel oil taxation—

Mr. Vane: In rural areas the incidence of fuel tax, although important, is slightly less, because the assumption is that more miles per gallon are obtained there than where vehicles are starting and stopping. I should have thought that 2½d. would have been a fairer figure.

Mr. McLeavy: It depends on the type of rural area. If the countryside is flat, the cost per mile may be lower than the figures I have given; if it is hilly, the cost may be higher and even as much as 4d. a mile. The point is that if we are to help passenger transport in rural areas, we must review the incidence of fuel oil taxation.
I can understand private enterprise omnibus companies, which obviously have to pay dividends to shareholders, saying, "We cannot continue this or that service in the rural areas because we find that not only is it uneconomic but that it is too great a strain upon our undertaking." It is very difficult for licensing authorities to insist upon an undertaking doing something which will push its finances into the red. I appeal to the Minister of Transport to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at this problem again.
If by some relief of taxation we can get improved services in rural areas, that will be advantageous all round, but I should not like to make the rash claim that if the tax on petrol and fuel for buses is abolished it will mean a substantial reduction in the cost of transport. It would not, but it would assist in meeting the ever-increasing problems of the industry. I beg the Government, in order to make some contribution to the solution of these problems in the agricultural areas, to think again and to give transport a chance of giving to rural areas the services which it is anxious to provide, if its financial position will allow it so to do.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. H. R. Spence: I am sure that the Minister of Transport must have been impressed today by the collective voice of the House on this most important subject of rural transport. I am grateful to have a chance towards the end of this debate of saying a word or two from the very north-east of Scotland on how the problem faces us there.
I cannot follow the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) on one or two of the recommendations which he made to the Minister. He suggested that the Minister should disregard the appeal made to him for the use of smaller buses, saying that a small bus would be inconvenient for peak load periods and would mean running two buses in place of one. I would urge upon the Minister that he


should look at areas where there is no bus at all and areas which had bus services up to a year or two ago, but are now entirely without such services owing to the cost of operating them. I beg him to consider what can be done by encouraging the giving of a reasonable service with a small bus in that kind of locality at the present time.
There is no doubt that the problem is very rapidly becoming more acute, owing to developments in transport and the modern way of social life in the countryside. The drift away from the land of those who actually work on it has been stressed this afternoon, but I want to make an appeal—and this is something which has not been stressed sufficiently so far—on behalf of the families of those who work upon the land. In and near our medium-sized towns and cities there are always opportunities for employment. Where there is no rural bus service those opportunities cannot be taken, and the members of the family drift out of the area. For that to happen is a very bad thing from every point of view, and I would particularly ask the Minister to bear it in mind.
I cannot agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bradford, East that the postal services have little to offer the bus companies in economy of running. In my view, we ought to take the most practical possible view of what the local bus services can do, whether it be in carrying children to school, providing a parcels service or carrying the post, and carrying passengers on all occasions and on all routes which they cover. There are today far too many watertight compartments controlling the vehicles using our roads, and there is far too much watertight thinking. I ask the Minister to apply the same common sense approach to this problem of road transport as we see in Switzerland, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), who moved the Amendment.
If we take proper account of all means of sustaining a bus service, I believe that the loss in running such a service will be greatly minimised. That could be helped by there being a direction to education authorities to work in conjunction with the Transport Commission so that contracts for taking children to school

could be let to the same operators who are to run buses on a particular route. I have in mind instances of all these examples which have occurred recently in my own constituency, and I can therefore speak from experience.
Finally, I want to refer to the operation of closed-down branch lines. We have heard that the chief problem is the running of the actual train. I wonder whether the Minister has considered blocking these lines off into twenty-mile stretches and operating upon each such stretch a single vehicle up and down in a shuttle service, with no overtaking or passing. Each block of twenty miles could be considered separately; there would be no signalling and none of the oncosts which must arise where a number of vehicles operate on one stretch of line.
I should be very glad if the Minister will tell us in his reply that something will be done, and give us some hope of improvement in the North. In my own area there are two villages, Lumsden and Rhynie, which are now virtually without a public transport service. On one side of both of them are trunk roads and railways, but there is no connecting link by road with either. That is surely wrong, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us some hope that there will in the near future be a resumption of services in places such as those I have quoted.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: Even if it means that I have to cut down my speech, I am glad that we have had the opportunity of hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence). In a very short time he has contributed a great deal to this debate. That quite often does happen when we have to shorten our speeches; I hope that having to compress my own will have the same effect.
I say at once that I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on his good luck in the Ballot which gave him the opportunity of introducing this Amendment. I only hope he will have the same luck with his first Premium Bond—and if he does, I should like to share the winnings with him. I am sure that both he and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who seconded


the Amendment, are well qualified to speak on this problem of rural transport.
The present situation of rural transport does indeed present a problem. It is true, as has been said, that this debate covers very much the same ground as the debate that we had on 9th December on the Bill which did not then get a Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) called attention to the fact that there was some opposition on this side of the House to that Bill, but I would for myself say that we were not hostile to the purpose of the Bill but rather to the methods by which the Bill sought to give effect to the desire to improve rural transport. In my view, the Bill was mistaken in that. I could not say the same about this Amendment, which I consider to be well founded.
Certain it is that we on this side of the House want to see our countryside remaining populated with contented people whose lives are soundly based on the soil. To achieve that end, we must bring to the people who live in the countryside, and particularly to workers' families, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire reminded us, a chance of participating in urban industry. That can only be possible if we provide farm workers and their families with reasonable access to the towns and the amenities which only the towns can provide.
What is the real problem of rural transport? Surely it arises from the fact that so many branch lines are running at a loss and so many omnibus undertakings, quite understandably, are not prepared to provide an unprofitable service. It is understandable that a bus undertaking, whose purpose it is, of course, to make a profit for its owners, will not long continue a service which loses money, despite the fact that that service does provide a considerable amenity for the people who use it.
The British Transport Commission is now mainly a railway undertaking charged with the task of securing that the revenue of the Commission is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another. I agree with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that the Commission cannot continue to operate at a loss as long as it has that duty placed upon it by

the House. We did it deliberately with our eyes wide open, the Committee has to accept the obligation contained in that Section of the 1947 Act. If it is accepted, both as to the position of the omnibus undertakings and as to the position of the B.T.C., then I think the House must accept that we must find some other way of trying to ensure that we provide reasonable transport facilities for the countryside.
The hon. Member for Westmorland divided the subject into two parts, and said that he would deal with railways first. I will follow his example. While I accept that the B.T.C. must not continue to run a little-used branch line on the backs, as it were, of the transport employees or the other users of transport, I do not accept the point of view—and I emphasise this—that everything possible has yet been tried in the way of making branch lines self-supporting. Last Saturday night, for example, I was on Gloucester Station, and I asked the guard of a train what was the object standing at the platform and where it was going. He told me, "That train has been running to Cinderford since 1907". Whether he meant the timing of the train or the actual engine and coach set I do not know, but it might well have been the latter, since it appeared to be contemporaneous with George Hudson if not George Stephenson.
That was on Saturday night, when it might have been expected that that engine and coach set would be carrying a lot of people back from Gloucester. It appeared to me, even at that time of night, to be carrying something less than an ordinary small bus load—but it was carrying that ordinary small bus load with a train crew the same as that which would have been carried by an eight or twelve coach set with anything up to 500 passengers in it.
That aspect is undoubtedly one of the problems. The problem of the branch lines has not been considered only in the House and by the B.T.C. By some strange chance I read in "Today's Arrangements" in The Times of 25th February, 1956, this notice:
Society for the Re-invigoration of Unremunerative Branch Lines in the United Kingdom: Public meeting on 'The Place of the Branch Line in Britain Today'. St. Saviour's Church Hall, St. George's Square, Pimlico. 2.45.


I regret that I was unable to attend this meeting of the Society for the Reinvigoration of Branch Lines, but I looked in The Times the following day for a report of that meeting. Unfortunately, no such report appeared. Had one done so, I should, of course, have drawn the Minister's attention to it. All I can suggest in this connection—because I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to see these unremunerative branch lines reinvigorated—is that he should join this society and get his information from it. We certainly want a little reinvigoration.

Mr. Speir: Is the hon. Member aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) is a member of that society.

Mr. Champion: I must ask my hon. Friend what happened on that occasion; it might be helpful.
We must remember that the problem of branch lines is one of capital investment. I agree with very much which has been said about the possibility of the development of a light rail car, and I believe that we ought to be conducting a lot of research into that matter. To some extent the diesel car appears to be the answer, but, as we know, a diesel car is an expensive item of equipment, and unless we can develop something much lighter and cheaper I cannot see that it will be the whole answer to this problem.
I agree that something must be done about the whole problem of signalling on the branch lines. We are keeping to methods which were developed in the last century in entirely different circumstances, and we ought to be looking at the problem afresh in the light of modern transport developments. How right was the hon. Member for Truro when he called attention to the standard of fencing which has been maintained along the railways. It is preposterous that railways should be saddled with these charges for fencing in circumstances which are no longer the same as when that decision was taken by Parliament.
Then there is the provision of station amenities and staffs. Are the amenities provided at these stations necessary? The bus companies do not even provide shelters; that is left to the taxpayer and the ratepayer. Shelters ought to be provided, but not as a charge on the railway

undertaking to provide them in circumstances in which the bus companies have them provided by the taxpayer and ratepayer. I am bound to say that the last time I heard this whole problem discussed by Sir Reginald Wilson it seemed to me that he had some ideas in this connection which were worth while, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will discuss these points with him, if he has not already done so.
But all the ideas in the world will have little effect if capital is not available to carry them out. In this connection, I must say that I fear the Chancellor's move in relation to the capital required for this industry, particularly—and I stress this—if the remark which he made last night about the nationalised industries is an indication of his approach to the problem of finding capital for them. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, the hon. Member for Westmorland will have to whistle for an improvement in rural transport. He is not likely to get it, because capital is the essence of the problem.
It must be remembered that the railways are an industry which have been starved of capital for forty years. The industry has been starved of capital since before the First World War, partly because of war circumstances and partly because of what happened in the interwar years. It has been said that the Minister has brought a fresh and vigorous mind to this problem, and I hope that the Minister will impress this fact about starvation of capital upon the Chancellor in any consideration which he gives to the question of the capital necessary to the industry. If it does not get the capital it cannot improve the branch lines, keep them open and do what needs to be done. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will bring that forcefully to the Chancellor's notice, and I hope the Chancellor will pay some attention to him.
There is also the problem of the omnibus undertakings in rural areas. There cannot be any compulsion on an undertaker to continue to run an unremunerative service; I do not see how the Minister of Transport can possibly apply such compulsion with the legislation and powers which he has at present. It is true that licensing authorities manage in some cases, by tactful handling of applicants, to ensure that unremunerative


routes are partially covered—we know that that happens—but the very fact that they cannot wholly succeed in that matter has caused the hon. Member for Westmorland to move his Amendment today. The fact that the licensing authorities cannot achieve that by the use of that sort of persuasion confronts us with the problem about rural transport which we have been discussing.
The Amendment suggests that ways and means might be provided, if the Government will review, among other things, taxation as it applies to this industry. Year after year the omnibus industry makes its approaches to the Chancellor. Year after year we, as Members of Parliament, are bombarded with postcards and letters from bus users asking us to press upon the Chancellor the need for a reduction in the fuel tax which is imposed on that industry. There is something to be said for that pressure which is brought to bear upon us annually. I imagine that the hon. Member had that point in mind when he framed that section of his Amendment.
Would it not be possible for the Chancellor and the Government, if they accept the Amendment, to consider a reduction in the fuel tax for omnibus undertakings in return for some increase in rural services? I know that that would be rather difficult to work out, but it is something which might be kept in mind.
Despite the figures produced by the hon. Member for Westmorland, I believe that there must be many services which have been withdrawn but which might have just paid their way had there not been the necessity to pay that tax. Some services would still be running but for the fact of the fuel tax, and I think that the Government should examine that aspect, particularly as this Amendment has been so well received by all hon. Members. Today, the House has, as it were, turned itself into a Council of State. There has been very little of the Government and Opposition about it. We have been discussing a great industry, and we hope that some good will result from our debate.
I regard this Amendment as one which should be adopted and implemented by the Government. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) promoted a

Bill, the idea of which I supported, which would have given someone a job without the tools to do it. Unlike that Measure, this Amendment contains ideas. Although, as I have said, our discussion has not been that of a Government and Opposition or one between Tory and Labour Members in the ordinary sense, I would remind the Minister that in its General Election manifesto in 1951 his party promised the country to introduce better transport facilities in the rural areas. That was a firm promise. It is true that other promises made at the same time have not been carried out—such as the "hole in the purse" promise and things of that sort—but, nevertheless, that was one of the firm promises made to the country on which hon. Members opposite were returned to power. I hope that the Government will pay some regard to that when deciding what they propose to do about the Amendment.
I agree with the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) that without a co-ordinated road-rail system, with some degree of monopoly, as in the case of the Post Office, running as a public service and not as a private undertaking, there can be no real solution to our road transport problem. Unless we can have some such body with a job to do, as we had before the 1953 Act, and unless we give that body the means to do it, we shall not solve this problem. In the absence of such a solution as that—and I cannot expect the Government to accept that as the solution, having regard to their 1953 Act—I think we should try the methods set out in the Amendment, which, I hope, will be accepted.

6.34 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has said, this has been a very fair, frank and practical debate, and I have listened to it with great pleasure. As for my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), I would say, as an addition to the many tributes which have been paid to him, that in him rural transport has a very good, a very able and a very fair advocate.
It would be easy for me to produce a vast barrage of facts and statistics, as was


said by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), and to knock down many of the arguments advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not propose to do that, because I know that these arguments have been advanced in a genuine attempt to meet this problem of rural transport, which is denied by no one and, least of all, by myself. But there are two hard facts which explain the dilemma confronting rural transport, and, indeed, transport as a whole, following the advent of the motor car and its enormous increase in numbers in recent years—an increase which we must all expect will continue.
These two facts are the only two which I propose to give in this connection, and in my opinion they make plain the sort of burden which lies on the railways. As other speakers have done, I will start with the railways. Today—and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) indicated these figures—one-third of the total passenger traffic of British Railways earns only one-third of the net cost of running them. That means that about 30 million passenger miles are earning British Railways only under one-third of the net physical cost of providing them. That is a rather heavy burden for any industry to bear.
Another guide to the somewhat ruthless methods needed to improve the situation is that in Holland, where railways are more nearly successfully run at a profit than in many other countries, no fewer than 691 stations out of a total of just under 1,000 have been closed; well over half of the stations there have been closed in order to try to get the railways on a more profitable basis. I do not wish the House to misunderstand the difficulty or to forget, as we were reminded by the hon. Member for Derbyshire South-East, that this House has laid on the British Transport Commission the duty of making itself pay, as between one year and another, and indeed of creating a reserve against future contingencies.
There is, therefore, a dilemma which the House and the country must face. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) stated frankly that his solution was a subsidy., He did not indicate its size, but I think that I should be fair if I said that that was his solution. Of

course, a subsidy or a contribution to a capital asset like a water supply system is a different matter from a subsidy for a running service on road or rail. On other occasions we have debated the question of a railway subsidy and the House has decided—and it is still the view of the Government—that a general subsidy for road or rail operation is not a possible solution. I do not think that any hon. Member would recommend it, and certainly, in moving his Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland said specifically that he did not advocate a general subsidy.
If we are to get away from a general subsidy yet have to face this heavy operating loss on the railways, we are faced with a difficult problem. Many hon. Members have suggested solutions, and I will mention what is happening regarding some of the points which have been raised. We must first accept that what I will call a sort of tram vehicle on the railways is a "non-runner"—I say that advisedly. That is the vehicle mentioned by several hon. Members which has been running in Ireland. I asked one of my officers to telephone to Ireland this morning to find out about its present state of health. I learned that it was very bad indeed, and that steam trains are having to replace it for many operations. So I am afraid that the attempt to put a bus on the railway—a very bold idea and one worth trying—has not worked.
There is much more hope for the kind of vehicle mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) namely, the battery-operated light rail car; particularly in Scotland where, of course, it will have the hydro-electric power to recharge its batteries. As an example, the House might like to know that that vehicle, which weighs 25 tons, will have 12 tons of batteries in it, which is rather a difficult problem. However, I am glad to tell my hon. Friend and other hon. Members interested in the matter, that all the difficulties about design, etc., are now cleared away, and the Commission is proceeding with the design and construction of at least one experimental vehicle and perhaps more in order that this very interesting idea may be tried out. So, at least, the Commission has


made some progress there, but the difficulties are very great, owing to the enormous weight of the batteries.

Captain Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where it will be tried out?

Mr. Watkinson: In Scotland.

Captain Duncan: What part of Scotland?

Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly tell my hon. and gallant Friend where it is intended first to try it out, but I think that the Commission will give it a trial in several areas under different running conditions.
I will not say much about the ordinary diesel rail car, because I think that it is well-known by hon. Members that it has greatly increased traffics. Seventy per cent. to 100 per cent. increase in passenger traffics is not exceptional with a diesel rail-car. Of course, it is purchased to increase running, but the cost of a two unit car is very high, about £25,000. The Commission is to build 4,600 of these cars in order to see whether they will make some branch lines an economic proposition. I understand that each has to carry about a hundred passengers to make it a profitable running unit, and that is a tall order on some branch lines.
I have been asked by several hon. Members if we accept the doctrine that British Railways has to cut away more of its unremunerative services. That I believe to be true. If the Commission is to implement the 1947 Act, the House must realise that it has to do away with some unremunerative services.

Mr. Percy Collick (Birkenhead): I venture to suggest that the 1947 Act never will be implemented in that sense.

Mr. Watkinson: That is a matter which we cannot debate on this occasion, but I think that it is right to ask, where does that process stop?
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) asked for a general inquiry into rail operations. I think that he asked for a general inquiry into rural transport altogether. I can tell the House that the British Transport Commission has called from all regions for a close investigation of branch lines and all stopping services. Costing investigations are now in progress. The Chairman and I will take a great interest

in this inquiry, and it will be most carefully considered during the six months' review which, I have already told the House, is now taking place of the whole of the rail operations. This review will certainly not be all one way.
It is certainly not intended merely to see how many more services we can cut away, but rather how many services can be run on a reasonable basis. Of course, all sections of the railway cannot make a profit, in just the same way as very few bus services today can make a profit on sometimes even 50 per cent. of their services. The good has to carry the bad. I should greatly mislead the House if I led it to believe that the British Transport Commission will not have to cut away some of the unremunerative services, but it is to make a new attempt to put on an economic basis as many of its branch and stopping-line services as it can. That investigation is now in process. I think that there is only one other point concerning the railways.

Mr. Tom Brown: There is one question which I want to put. A number of branch lines are threatened with closure. Will they come under review before they are finally closed?

Mr. Watkinson: That depends on how far the matter has got. If it is in before the transport users' consultative committee, I am not quite sure what the position will be, but if a line has, so to speak, not been advertised for closing it will certainly come under review.
There is one other thing which I want to say about the railways. Many hon. Members have asked, "Cannot we try a light tramway and cut down signalling?" That is a good point. That could be done. I can, as hon. Members know, relieve the railways of some of their obligations of block working on some of these branch lines, but I must warn the House that I cannot do that without the concurrence of my inspecting officer. I would not dare to, because I am personally responsible.
One hon. Member suggested, "Why not have traffic lights rather than gates?" That seems to be a feasible idea until we realise that a steel wheel on a steel rail has not the stopping power of a rubber wheel on a macadam road, and we cannot put the duty on the unfortunate man who is running the train by himself to try to stop


at traffic lights which he would have to see an immense distance away if he were to have any chance of stopping his train. I do not want to mislead the House on the difficulty of these matters.
If there is any hope of making a railway into a tramway, I am only too willing to co-operate with the Commission in doing that. But the Commission tried to sell its railway lines in the Isle of Wight and it could not get a single bidder. These things will be tried, subject to one consideration—that the safety of the passengers must not be prejudiced. That is my responsibility.
I now come to the question of buses. Here, there is a rather more hopeful tale to tell. Perhaps I should preface what I have to say by giving this one set of figures. An hon. Member asked, "Can a general statement be made on the proportion of bus services that are uneconomic?" I have some figures here, and I think that it is only fair to those responsible for the bus services to give one or two of them because, whether nationalised or not, they are running an enormous proportion of unremunerative services. To give an example, the proportion of unremunerative services provided by one group of companies is 43 per cent. It ranges over a whole list of sample companies providing a large mileage. Another group provided nearly 1½ million stage miles a week and gave 59 per cent. unremunerative service. A small single company, with 124,000 stage miles a year, gave 45 per cent.
It is common to find between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the bus services today giving completely unremunerative service. That is partly the answer to those who say that taxation easement is the complete answer to this. It is not so at all. That may make a marginal difference over the country as a whole, but the solution to the problem of rural bus services is not to be found in easement of taxation. I do not say that it will not help, but it is not a cure.
There are one or two points not generally understood which may help a little more in answering hon. Members who asked, "What kind of vehicles can apply for traffic?" The first thing not generally known, perhaps among people who might do it, is that cars of any kind that carry fewer than eight passengers are outside my specifications and outside the ambit

of the fitness regulations. If, for instance, one has a Land Rover or a big saloon car which does not carry more than eight passengers, my fitness regulations do not apply. Therefore, we can run a very limited bus service like that.
A number of vehicles carry eight to fourteen passengers. I have looked into this matter carefully, and I am advised they range in price from just over £1,000 to £2,000. So we can take it that the small bus, carrying up to fourteen passengers, can cost little more than £1,000, and that will be a bus which fulfils my fitness regulations. To sum up, it is possible to find fairly cheap transport vehicles, and there is an adequate range of reasonably small vehicles to fit the small country roads.
What is the view of the licensing authorities, which try to carry out the policy of the Ministry? I would point out that I do not and should not give them any direction in the matter. It may not be generally known that they have recently granted a licence to a local clergyman to run a bus service in order to take his parishioners to church, and also to private motorists who have offered to run services and are charging their passengers for doing so, in an attempt to do a little more in the way of mutual aid and self-help, which, I believe, is needed in rural districts.
So far as it is proper for me to influence the licensing authorities, I shall certainly influence them to be as helpful as they can in granting licences. They can grant a goods and passenger licence at the same time. Although, technically, one has to apply to a different licensing authority, in effect he is the same man. It is now possible to start up in these areas the old idea of the common carrier who can carry both passengers and goods.
I am having the question of trailers for use with buses and small vehicles examined. I cannot tell the House the answer, but it might be a help, and if the use of the trailer does not raise any very great safety problems we shall try to authorise its use in those cases where people want to use it. I can give no firm commitment until the position has been looked at by the small group of officials which is now studying it. As soon as my Department's discussions are completed, I shall receive a report and will take a decision upon the issue.
On the licensing question, there are many things which people could do today but of which they are very often unaware. If hon. Members think that it will be of any assistance, I shall be quite willing to set out all these matters in a statement and try to give it some publicity, so that people may know what they can and cannot do.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Watkinson: It appears to be the sense of the House that that would be useful, and I shall try to see that it is done. Many people might then find that they can do something with their own cars, estate wagons or even a small bus, if they are willing to take the risk. There will be no subsidy in their case. It would seem that there would be some prospect of providing more self-help and mutual aid by that means, which might do something to help these very scattered populations.
I have no time to reply in detail to many other questions, such as those relating to the mail service. Incidentally, I am advised that the Post Office has 550 individual services in Scotland where buses are carrying mail. I agree that it might be possible to do more, and I certainly undertake to look into the position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) made a point about the school buses problem. I am not sure that there is much scope there, but some help might be given in certain cases. I understand the difficulty to be that although the bus appears to be empty when calling at a lonely croft, by the time it reaches the school it is practically full. I will look into that matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, and see whether we can run dual services of any kind. It is by these small alleviations that we can best make some progress, because the total numbers involved are not very great, although I am not saying for a moment that the hardship is not great.
I now turn to the terms of the Amendment. I think that I have shown that

I intend not to be huffy and stuffy about the problem, but will really try to make a little progress. In principle, the Government can accept the Amendment, but it mentions two matters which, more for technical than other reasons, cannot be accepted. I cannot accept an Amendment which mentions taxation, at a time when my right hon. Friend will soon be dealing with the matter in this House; nor can I accept a duty to use my powers under the Transport Act, 1919, because the powers mentioned are merely powers to pay a subsidy a point which my hon. Friend did not bring forward in the Amendment. I can certainly say quite firmly that I accept the general principle that we must do more to help these rural areas, but I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, for purely technical reasons, and I must therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

Before I sit down, I want to give a final assurance. This is not an easy problem. The solution does not lie so much upon the railway side; I believe that it is to be found more in the realm of road transport. I shall try to see that everybody knows clearly where he stands as to what he can and cannot do. I do not want to mislead the House by saying that I think that it is possible to resuscitate a great number of branch lines, although the Commission will do all that it can to do so.

I must ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, purely for the technical reasons that I cannot accept the mention of the word "taxation", and that it would place upon me the duty to implement a somewhat obsolete Act which I cannot implement.

Mr. Vane: In view of what the Minister has said, and his clear desire to help, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 214. Noes 175.

Division No. 147.]
AYES
[6.56 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Armstrong, C. W.
Balniel, Lord


Aitken, W. T.
Ashton, H.
Barlow, Sir John


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Atkins, H. E.
Barter, John


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton


Arbuthnot, John
Baldwin, A. E.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)




Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bidgood, J. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Page, R. G.


Bishop, F. P.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Black, C. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Partridge, E.


Body, R. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Braine, B. R.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitman, I. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pott, H. P.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Powell, J. Enoch


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bryan, P.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Redmayne, M.


Carr, Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Channon, H.
Hyde, Montgomery
Rippon, A. G. F.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robertson, Sir David


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Crouch, R. F.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Sharples, R. C.


Currie, G. B. H.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Shepherd, William


Dance, J. C. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Keegan, D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kershaw, J. A.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kimball, M.
Speir, R. M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kirk, P. M.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lagden, G. W.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duncan, Capt, J. A. L.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Duthie, W. S.
Leavey, J. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Leburn, W. G.
Studholme, H. G.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legge-Burke, Maj. E. A. H.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Errington, Sir Eric
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Foster, John
McKibbin, A. J.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Gammans, Sir David
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Vosper, D. F.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Glover, D.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wall, Major Patrick


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Green, A.
Marshall, Douglas
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mathew, R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mawby, R. L.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wood, Hon. R.


Harris, Reader (Helton)
Nairn, D. L. S.



Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Godber and Mr. Barber.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Blyton, W. R.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Albu, A. H.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Clunie, J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowles, F. G.
Coldrick, W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Boyd, T. C.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Anderson, Frank
Brockway, A. F.
Cove, W. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burke, W. A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Balfour, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Benson, G.
Carmichael, J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Delargy, H. J.


Blackburn, F.
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Blenkinsop, A.
Chapman, W. D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)







Dye, S.
Ledger, R. J.
Redhead, Edward Charles


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reid, William


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lindgren, G. S.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Finch, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
McGhee, H. G.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Forman, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Ross, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McInnes, J.
Royle, C.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Gibson, C. W.
McLeavy, Frank
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Macmillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Grey, C. F.
Mahon, S.
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Steele, T.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mason, Roy
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hale, Leslie
Messer, Sir F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hannan, W.
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hastings, S.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Healey, Denis
Mulley, F. W.
Thornton, E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Timmons, J.


Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Holmes, Horace
Oram, A. E.
Viant, S. P.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Oswald, T.
Watkins, T. E.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Owen, W. J.
Weitzman, D.


Hubbard, T. F.
Paget, R. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
West, D. G.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parker, J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Irving, S. (Dartford)
Pearson, A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holhn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Probert, A. R.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Proctor, W. T.
Winterbottom, Richard


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pryde, D. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Kenyon, C.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Woof, R. E.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, H. E.



King, Dr. H. M.
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

It being after Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. John Henderson: I rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I shall try to cover the ground as far as Glasgow Corporation is concerned. This may be very familiar to those Members of this House who at one time were city councillors of Glasgow, and I appeal to them to bear with me if I cover ground familiar to them. I propose to do so because there is some information which I think it very

desirable that those who were not councillors should have.
It has been my privilege to be a councillor for twenty years, a Deacon of one of the Incorporations of Glasgow, and a member of the Merchants House, and, therefore, I have a very intimate knowledge of these two great institutions and also experience as a councillor for very many years which enable me to oppose the Bill. I do so because I believe that if this Bill were passed something would be done which would certainly not please the citizens of Glasgow and which would be a blow to two great institutions with a wonderful record of local and charitable work.
The draft Bill provides that the Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener shall cease to be members of the town council and that the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, so far as providing that the Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener shall be constituent members of the town council, shall be repealed as from the first Tuesday in May, 1956.
The Glasgow Corporation is thus seeking under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, by means of a Private Bill applicable to Glasgow alone, to reverse the policy of Parliament declared and established by a series of public Acts which deal with the corresponding rights in the five large cities of Scotland, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee and Perth.
In 1833, when the Municipal Reform (Scotland) Act was passed, the position of the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener in Glasgow, of the Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener of the Guilds of the other four cities, after the most careful Parliamentary inquiry, was expressly recognised and confirmed, as were also the rights of jurisdiction of the Dean of Guild Courts. Parliament again preserved these privileges in the Municipal Elections Act, 1868. In 1900 the Town Councils (Scotland) Act again confirmed the rights of the Deans of Guild and the Deacon Conveners to be constituent members of the councils of their respective cities.
It is within the recollection of many Members of this House that it was provided in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, that the persons elected by the Merchants House and the Trades House, respectively, in the City of Glasgow should, by virtue of their election, be constituent members of the town council and should exercise all functions exercised immediately before the commencement of that Act by such office bearers.
There were previous attempts to unseat these two distinguished members of two great institutions. In 1935 the Glasgow Corporation promoted a Bill seeking that the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener should cease to be members of the corporation, and again, after the most careful consideration and debate, the House refused a Second Reading by 190 votes to 52. Then, as I have already indicated, it came before the House in 1947, when the Local Government (Scotland) Act expressly confirmed that the Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener should be members of the Corporation of Glasgow.
For the twenty years that I was on the Glasgow Corporation, on no occasion has there been the slightest allegation

that these two men of intrinsic character, whose honesty was never disputed or questioned—these men who have by their office been singled out from their fellow men as being of outstanding ability—did not worthily fulfil the functions of the city council.
There is a very close connection between the city and the Merchants House and Trades House, and it has always been to the advantage of the community of Glasgow as a whole. The Deacon Convener and the Lord Dean of Guild are non-party men—[Laughter.]

Mr. James McInnes: Withdraw!

Mr. Henderson: I say to those hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who do not know the first thing about Glasgow, that they will have their opportunity to deal with what I am saying. I can give instances of occasions when both the Deacon Convener and the Lord Dean of Guild voted with the Socialist Members of the City Council of Glasgow.

Mrs. Jean Mann: When?

Mr. Henderson: On one occasion, long before the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central was a member of the Glasgow Town Council, there was a proposal that the electricity supply for one of the departments of the Corporation of Glasgow should be generated at Pinkston. The Tory Party—the Progressive Party—[Laughter.] I do not want to be unfair, but I should perhaps call them the Progressive Party. The Convener of that Committee—and this is all for the benefit of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central—was a gentleman called Mr. James Newman and he was a Socialist Convener while the Moderate Party was in power. The Moderate Party in those days was big enough to give a fair share of convenerships to the opposition party. On the Committee which was set up to go into the matter was the Deacon Convener of the Trades House. He was a very distinguished and able man, Mr. Robertson of Cornbooth. Not only was he the Deacon Convener of the Trades House Council but he was also the Chairman of the Clyde Valley Electricity Company which was so efficient and highly organised that within a few years it supplied the whole of the area


outwith Glasgow with current. Glasgow was like a penny in the middle of a plate. It was such a wonderful organisation, and this man was its chairman. He was put on this committee. I was present. In a very able speech he appealed to the then Moderate Party to support the Socialist Convener, and he won. That is one of the instances when the Deacon Convener voted with the Socialist Party.

Mr. McInnes: Will the hon. Member accept from me that the amazing regularity with which the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener voted with the Conservative Party on the Glasgow Corporation, as recorded in the minutes of Glasgow Corporation, was in the ratio of 100 to one?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member makes that statement, but I hope that during the course of this debate he will give us something more than a mere statement of figures.
What I want to emphasise is this. So far as I know, when these two distinguished gentlemen cast their vote it was an honest vote. I believe they were sincere. I have no doubt that these men were honourable men of the highest integrity who could be trusted to do the right thing.
Both these Houses have played a leading part in the development of Glasgow for three and a half centuries. There has been a continuous representation on the Town Council of Glasgow for something like 350 years. The two Houses are the most important charitable institutions in the West of Scotland.
The Dean of Guild and of the Merchant House is also the President of the Dean of Guild Court, which is a very important body indeed, and which has a very close relationship with the Corporation. The Dean of Guild presides over the Court and decides all petitions for the erection of buildings, the formation of streets and other matters connected with the city. At a glance one can see how important it is that in a city with a great housing problem, with a population of 1,250,000, ever building, rebuilding and clearing slums, a man who sits on the Court and passes the plans for all these buildings should have a seat on the council and be able to give the benefit of his superior knowledge. The average

yearly value of the buildings authorised in recent years has been about £13,800,000 and the applications for authority to build or construct have averaged about 600 per annum. In addition, there have been over 1,000 applications for minor warrants. These are all dealt with in each year.
In his consideration of all these applications, the Dean of Guild is assisted on legal matters by a highly-qualified legal assessor, but the composition of the Court is this: four from the Trades House and four from the Merchants House. They are called syners, or perhaps a better word would be assessors. These men are selected by these two great bodies, the Merchants House and the Trades House, because of their special knowledge of building. I ask hon. Members opposite, who a few years ago were councillors, whether they could find in Glasgow Corporation at the moment eight men, experienced, highly efficient, brought up in the building industry, who could take the place of these eight men who constitute the Guild of Court.

Mr. McInnes: Does not the hon. Member realise that if the Bill is passed those eight people to whom he refers will still function and that the Dean of Guild will still function? He will deal with all plans and all the data to which the hon. Member has referred. The Bill in no way interferes with the function of the Dean of Guild or the eight people. All it asks is that they should not be allowed to be elected as ex officio members of Glasgow Corporation.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but his intervention strengthens my argument. I recognise that the Bill does not affect this man in such a way, but I think at the moment he is a member of the general finance committee. How important it is that a man in such authority, presiding over this court, should be able to assist the corporation. How important it is that the corporation should have the benefit of his knowledge and undoubted business ability and his great efficiency, which is outstanding and of which the Corporation of Glasgow should gladly avail itself.
Like the Merchants House, the Trades House of Glasgow is an elective body of sixty-four. It has representation on most


of the public and philanthropic institutions in Glasgow, including the Clyde Navigation Trust and Dean of Guild Court. If I had time to go over the important part which these two distinguished people have played in the city of Glasgow, I think hon. Members who are not aware of their wonderful record would think twice before supporting the Bill promoted by the Socialist majority in Glasgow Corporation.
For many years the man who presided over a large hospital in the city of Glasgow—the Victoria Hospital, a great institution—was a gentleman known as Mr. James Gilchrist. He had been nominated by the Trades House of Glasgow to represent them on that board, by virtue of being a member of the Trades House. He began as an ordinary member of the board, but his presence was soon felt and he was recognised as a man outstanding amongst his fellows. Eventually he became chairman of this great institution.
Almost every philanthropic institution in Scotland has a member of the Merchants House and Trades House on it. These people have rendered wonderful service and have been unsparing of their time and substance.
By far the most important relation between the House and the crafts was that concerning the granting of supplementary pensions to needy members and their families, first, in the early days of its existence, by means of the Crafts or Trades Hospital, and later by means of pensions. The Trades House Incorporated Pensions are from £40 to £100 per year. These, added to those of the fourteen Incorporations, distributed a total of between £55,000 and £60,000 each year.
Very large sums of money have been voted during the years to assist in every good cause, such as the Sunday school movement, to assist infirmaries, asylums and hospitals, Anderson College, now out of existence, the University and other educational bodies, and on many occasions these institutions have given vast sums of money for the relief of the general poor of the city, for the unemployed and for national distress.
If I had time I could go over the list of some of the gifts and legacies which have been received by both houses. The list is long and imposing. Let me give

a few. There were the gifts from two brothers Pettigrew, Burgesses of the town. The money was left to provide two pensions for deserving Burgesses in no way connected with the Trades House or the Merchant House. There was a legacy of £10,000 by James Buchanan. He started life as a boy in a blacksmith's shop in the Stockwell. [Interruption.] I am sure hon. Members opposite will have their opportunity to speak. I am trying to state a case showing how important has been the work of these great institutions, which have existed for 350 years. It is up to hon. Members to justify doing something which has never been done during those 350 years—to unseat two distinguished men.
This gentleman left a legacy of £10,000. He started as a boy in a blacksmith's shop and within 25 or 30 years was the head of a merchant's house. This money is administered in providing the sons of members with a good technical education and training. Hundreds of lads in this country and in the Commonwealth have benefited from this assistance to enable them to have a technical education.
Another gift, known as the Drapers Fund, is unique and the attention of the House should be drawn to it.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Member inferring that these generous gifts will finish if these men do not have seats on the city council?

Mr. Henderson: That suggestion is quite unwarranted. These men are far above that sort of thing. I thought these facts would be of interest to the House.
Another gift, the Drapers' Fund, places in the hands of one person, the Deacon Convener, the sum of £550 which he can expend during his year of office in any charitable fashion he thinks fit. The gentleman chosen is not bound to keep a note of his intromissions. No questions can be asked of him, and he need not give any account of his stewardship unless he desires. That cuts across a lot of our red tape in connection with Government allowances. This man is entrusted with £550 to do what he thinks fit in charitable causes.
In the discretion of this same gentleman the three awards of £50 each annually to people in any station in life who have adopted a child and have kept it in residence with them for a period of not less


than five years. Here the administrator of the fund has absolute power, and he can award the adopter's bounty to peer or peasant, irrespective of creed or colour. The donor augmented this fund by a gift of heritable properties bringing in a yearly income of £3,000, which is sufficient to supply 60 grants of £50 each per year. Administration is in the hands of a committee of three, with the manager.
The Commonweal Fund is one of the most precious jewels in the whole history of benevolence in Glasgow or anywhere else. It was set up in 1924 and now amounts to more than £206,000. It was constituted to encourage generous donors and testators to remember the duty imposed upon the early craftsmen to devote part of their common belongings to
good and pious uses for the commonweal of the burgh.
I do not want to weary the House by mentioning further details. These funds help those who are passing through a time of stress and strain. Registered nurses in Glasgow who are temporarily incapacitated by illness are, by the generosity of the Perry Nurses' Trust, founded by a great citizen of Glasgow, able to have a holiday to restore their health again. There are many more such bequests, which are jewels in the work of benevolence and charity in Glasgow.

Mr. William Ross: Would the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) agree, on the basis of his argument, that Sir Andrew Carnegie should have been Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Henderson: No. He should have been made Lord Dean of the Guilds for Kilmarnock.
The Bill in no way represents the views of the people of Glasgow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I attended a church service on Sunday, and I spoke to a number of magistrates all of whom expressed the view that the Bill would be thrown out neck and crop. There is no sympathy for it. Glasgow would blush for shame to think that the elected heads of these two great institutions which go back 350 years, men of the calibre I have mentioned, anxious to play their part in trying to make the lives of the people of Glasgow happier in future than they are at present, irrespective of creed or party, should be barred from being

constituent members of the Glasgow Corporation, a privilege which Lord Deans of Guild and Deacon Conveners have enjoyed continuously for 150 years.
Glasgow has heartily condemned this House, for fear that the party that supports the Bill will do something which will have a detrimental effect upon the good government of the city of Glasgow. Hon. Members of the Opposition who support the Bill should think again and refuse to vote for a Bill which has not the slightest justification and should not be read the Second time.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I support the Bill, and in doing so I am voicing the view of the great mass of hon. Members. It is a real privilege to have listened to such a mass of irrelevancies as was advanced by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) in advocating the rejection of a Measure which for twenty years has had the support of the majority of the citizens of Glasgow.
The hon. Member managed to introduce the other four large cities of Scotland but it should be made clear that they are in no way concerned with the Bill. He managed also to introduce a personal note into his argument, but I am certain that it will not be pursued. We have nothing against the present holders of these two offices, and we are not concerned with the matter in a personal sense but as an issue of principle.
The hon. Member seemed to fear that if the Second Reading were carried the Merchants House and the Trades House would cease their philanthropic work, which we do not dispute they do.

Mr. J. Henderson: I did not intend any such thing by my remarks. The Merchants House and the Trades House are far too big to think that anything would in any respect retard their great work of benevolence.

Mr. Rankin: If that is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what he said his remarks were even more irrelevant than I feared. He did create in the minds of many of those who heard him the idea that the future of the Merchants House and the Trades House was in peril. He can be assured that the Dean of Guild Court will still function and the Lord Dean will still preside and that building


plans will be passed in the future as they have been in the past. I assure him and others who have been misled by the argument that there is no attempt or intention to interfere with the benevolent work of these two Houses.
The Bill is concerned with two issues—one that these non-elected persons will no longer be members of the Glasgow Corporation and, secondly, that the principle of "one man, one vote" shall be introduced into local elections in the City of Glasgow. That principle will apply in Glasgow as it applies to the election of the House of Commons.
If the Government say tonight that hon. Members should go into the Lobby to oppose the Bill they must clearly understand that they are opposing the application of the principle of "one man, one vote" in local government as it applies to Glasgow in particular. Further, they are supporting the principle that persons who are not elected by popular vote should continue to exercise functions for which they have no electoral mandate in the Corporation of Glasgow, and for which they have no responsibility.
The hon. Member for Cathcart pointed out that the position of the Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener had been confirmed by the Municipal Reform (Scotland) Act, 1833. He made a passing reference to the fact that a Glasgow Corporation Bill had been before the House of Commons in 1935 and that after the question which is now before the House had been thoroughly examined the House had defeated that Measure.
I say here and now that the hon. Member never read the debate which took place in this Chamber on the occasion to which he referred. That debate dealt with a Bill which covered many other matters. It covered the manufacture of omnibus bodies, it covered the sale of abondoned properties, it covered the election of the Lord Provost, and other matters in addition to the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener. Mr. Herbert Williams, as he then was, who moved the rejection of the Bill, never made a single reference in the whole of his speech to the question of the Lord Dean of Guild or the Deacon Convener.
There is no reference to and no careful examination whatsoever, in the speech

of the hon. Member whom most of us who are here tonight knew, of the question of the Dean of Guild or the Deacon Convener. Mr. John Lockwood, who seconded the rejection of the Bill, made a passing reference to the Dean of Guild and when challenged about the Deacon Convener said he would return to that aspect of the matter later in his speech. HANSARD shows that he never again made any reference in his speech to the Deacon Convener.

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Member will agree that although English Members speaking in the debate on that Bill may not have mentioned the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener, Scottish Members—among others Sir Robert Horne and Mr. George Buchanan—made considerable mention of them.

Mr. Rankin: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member has said that, because that was my next point.
The Glasgow Corporation Bill was defeated in 1935 because the Corporation of Glasgow was seeking to invade realms which are sacred to hon. Members opposite. The Corporation wanted to do things which hon. Members opposite thought the Corporation should have no right to do, and the Bill was debated largely on those issues. Little consideration was given to the question which is now before us.
The hon. and gallant Member mentioned that Sir Robert Horne spoke. Sir Robert on that occasion said that the House
ought to grant a Second Reading to a Bill if there is a prima facie case for examination …
The case submitted by this side of the House and by Glasgow Corporation is that there is a prima facie case for examination. If that case exists, then, in the view of Sir Robert Horne, a former Member of the House, the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray) ought to vote tonight for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Major Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Member compels me to ask him to bear in mind, when putting words into the


mouth of Sir Robert Home, that he finished his speech by saying,
I cannot on this occasion do anything but oppose the Second Reading of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th March, 1936; Vol 299, c. 1855–61.]

Mr. Rankin: That is so. There is no discovery in that. It is scarcely worth intimating to the world a discovery which most of us knew about twenty years ago. Sir Robert opposed the Bill but I am saying that he laid down that night that if there was a prima facie case for examination, the House should give the Bill a Second Reading. I submit that there is such a case here.
First, the Bill has the undoubted support of Glasgow Corporation. By 62 votes to 29, on 17th March, 1955, the Corporation decided to proceed with the Measure which is now before us. Fourteen members on the Tory side did not even take the trouble to vote against it, that is 14 out of 43. Only 6 members of the Labour Party did not vote.
There are 68 Labour and 43 Tories in a total of 111 members in the corporation, and by 62 votes to 29 the corporation decided to proceed with the Measure which we are now considering. At all subsequent stages the necessary majorities laid down by the Corporation's own standing orders and by the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, which the hon. Member for Cathcart quoted, were secured.
I know that, because other cities have been dragged into this matter unnecessarily, some hon. Members may say that since something of this nature is not provided in their cities, Glasgow must not have it either. I hope that no one on the other side of the House will be influenced by such a narrow attitude.
There is another reason which might weigh with some hon. Members. Opposition would have some proper argument if it could be shown that the Bill is injurious to the general body politic. There was not one word in what was said by the hon. Member for Cathcart which led to such a conclusion.
We shall be interested to hear whether the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) will oppose this Bill tonight against all his own beliefs. The Bill proposes to terminate the existing right of the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener to be constituent members of the

Corporation of Glasgow. It proposes that and nothing more. We on this side of the House say that this desire is the clearly expressed wish of the majority of the citizens of Glasgow over the last twenty years. There can be no argument on that point.
The majority of the citizens of Glasgow return a majority of Labour Members to this House. This is a factor which ought not to be disregarded when the House conies to take a decision on this clearly expressed desire. In addition, the citizens of Glasgow send an overwhelming majority of Labour Members to the city corporation, so that a decision not to give a Second Reading to the Bill will be a decision to impose the will of the minority on the majority in the interests of maintaining privilege and nothing but privilege.
On this side of the House we maintain that that privilege is now outdated. The Dean of Guild is head of the Merchants House, which has a membership of 1,000 people who want to cling to the right of sending a non-elected person to the counsels of the City Chamber of Glasgow, the average ward electorate for which is 19,000 members returning three councillors, an average of 6,000 per councillor, then it means that a body which has a membership of 1,000 at most wants the right that 6,000 people possess only on an elective basis. The Deacon Convener is the head of the Trades House, which has a membership of about 9,000. Both claim the right to non-elected status in the Corporation of Glasgow on the ground that they represent the business community.
The hon. Member for Cathcart who is opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, and who has had a long association with the Corporation of Glasgow, knows that the business community of Glasgow is already well represented in this corporation apart from these two non-elected persons.
If we were to apply the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman that business interests, as such, have a right to representation on the Corporation, then the Co-operative movement, one of the greatest business organisations in the City of Glasgow, with a membership of 200,000 persons, would on the argument of the hon. Gentleman, be entitled to have


twenty-non-elected persons in the Corporation of Glasgow but, put on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will immediately run away from his argument.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree with me that there are members nominated by the Co-operative movement?

Mr. Rankin: Is there no protection from the irrelevance of the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Henderson: Answer the question.

Mr. Rankin: It is so simple. I should not be asked to answer an elementary question and so waste the time of the House. The Co-operative political section nominates people to stand for election, and they can only enter the corporation if sufficient people in the ward for which they stand vote for their return.

Mr. Henderson: They are nominated just the same.

Mr. Rankin: Of course, and they are elected, but the two posts under consideration tonight are not tenanted by elected persons who submit themselves for election; they are tenanted by unelected persons who never seek a popular mandate at any time. The hon. Gentleman wants the House to maintain that position. The Co-operative movement would not at any time make such an absurd claim as the hon. Gentleman has made because it accepts the principle of one man, one vote, which those who oppose this Bill tonight are proposing to reject.
In addition, there is this further reason. I have referred to the fact that the hon. Gentleman said that the position of the two offices in dispute had been confirmed by the Act of 1833. Yet he skilfully refused to pay attention to the fact that two years later a Royal Commission, which inquired into the municipal corporations of Scotland, went into the matter thoroughly. It sat from February to September, 1835, and came to this conclusion:
We have been unable to discover any reason why these particular Corporations should be endowed with this extraordinary privilege. The practical result will be to bestow on them a double share of representation in the General Council of the Burgh.

Therefore, it recommended:
We therefore beg leave to recommend that these seats ex officio should be taken away.
It should be noted that the offices will remain. The Deacon Convener will remain Head of the Trades House, which will continue to send its four representatives to the Dean of Guild Court. If at any time either of the gentleman concerned in these honourable offices desires to attain the dignity of a city councillor, he will submit himself to the democratic process of public election as do the 111 Members of the corporation, assuming that this Bill becomes law.
In my view there is no argument against the Bill. Hon. Members should keep in mind the fact that it applies only to Glasgow. It has the support of the citizens of Glasgow. It has the blessing of a Royal Commission, and it fulfils completely the democratic precept as applied to all local government in the City of Glasgow, that one man shall gave only one vote. On those grounds, therefore, I hope that the House will see fit to give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.0 p.m.

Sir Ian Clark Hutchison: It may seem a little strange that a Member for Edinburgh should intervene in a debate on a Measure which, as the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) said, is entirely confined to Glasgow. I agree that technically that is so, in that this is a Bill promoted by Glasgow Corporation. Nevertheless, the substance of the Bill does bring forth certain matters which may indirectly affect the position of other cities in Scotland.
Under Section 330 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, which, incidentally, is a consolidation Measure, provision is made that there shall be certain ex officio members of the town councils of various cities in Scotland. For example, in Glasgow there is the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener, in the City of Edinburgh there is the Lord Dean of Guild and the Convener of Trades, while the Cities of Aberdeen, Dundee and Perth have Deans of Guild.
It therefore follows that if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, a precedent will be created which may well have repercussions in other cities where there are also these ex officio members. I want


to make it clear that I have had no representation from any quarter in the City of Edinburgh asking that there should be any change in the present system, or that the Lord Dean of Guild or the Convener of Trades should be excluded from the deliberations of the town council.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, those two respected and responsible citizens take a useful part in the work of the town council. I know that that was so in the days between 1935 and the outbreak of war, when I was a member of the town council, and I well remember the useful part they played in the work of the council. I am certainly not aware of there having been any movement in the City of Edinburgh in recent years to bring about a change. I have made some inquiries to make sure of that.
I find that the most recent occasion on which this matter was raised in Edinburgh was as far back as 1932, almost a quarter of a century ago. For the information of the House, I will just quote an excerpt from the minutes of the meeting of the Town Council of Edinburgh of 4th February, 1932:
After discussion, Councillor Gilzcan, seconded by Councillor Hardie, moved:
'That this Town Council is of opinion that the continuation of the offices of Lord Dean of Guild and Convener of Trades as Members of this Town Council constitute an anomaly which can no longer be justified. Further, that Parliamentary Powers be asked to abolish the existing rights of the Guildry and the Incorporated Trades to elect a representative to this Town Council, and to elect a Lord Dean of Guild from among the regularly elected Members of the Council.'
Councillor Fortune, seconded by Councillor Hastie, moved as an amendment that no action be taken on the motion.
On a division, by a show of hands, fourteen voted for the motion and forty-six for the amendment.
The amendment was therefore declared carried, and the Magistrates and Council resolved in terms thereof.
That was in 1932, and there has been no subsequent action with regard to this matter, which shows that there is satisfaction in the City of Edinburgh with the present composition of the town council. I therefore feel that I am echoing the wishes of the City of Edinburgh in trying to prevent any encroachments or repercussions which may arise from the passage of the Bill, and I am therefore opposed to it.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the hon. Member not aware that the matter was raised in the House in 1947, fifteen years after that?

Sir I. Clark Hutchison: There is no record of its having been raised in the town council of Edinburgh. The people of Edinburgh and not hon. Members are the persons directly concerned in this matter.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I had some difficulty in understanding the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) and the relevance of his speech to this Bill which is concerned with Glasgow. It is only in respect of Glasgow that it is asked that action should be taken. The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) seemed to have as little to do with the problem as the flowers that bloom in the spring, because although he was speaking about a quite worthy object, the administration of charitable institutions, he failed to tell the House in what way the Bill will interfere with them.
In justification for his opposition to the Bill, he said that he was at a church service on Sunday when the Lord Provost, the magistrates and others were present and that he was quite emphatic that not one of those present was in favour of the Bill.

Mr. J. Henderson: The hon. Member must not mis-quote me. I said that I spoke to a number of magistrates and that every one to whom I spoke indicated that in his opinion the Bill would get thrown out.

Mr. Hannan: That is different from what the hon. Member first said. Certainly the impression he conveyed was that all the people who were there were opposed to the Bill.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member must not put words into my mouth.

Mr. Hannan: As he has now made it clear, I am content to leave it at that. I am very surprised to hear that the Lord Provost, for example, was opposed to the Bill.
The Bill asks that these two historical offices should be abolished, because in principle it is wrong that two people


should be sent to the council to have full voting rights, without going through the electoral process to which all other members are subjected once every three years. That is the kernel of the Bill. If in these modern democratic days any hon. Member wants to justify some people having a dual vote and a dual representation, let him say it on those grounds and not on the evidence and on the speech of the hon. Member for Cathcart.
Glasgow elects 111 councillors from 37 wards. Its full membership is 113. Two members, the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener, are added to the elected membership to make up the full corporation. The Dean of Guild is elected by the Merchants House, which claims to represent the mercantile community of Glasgow. It goes back to the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries. They have the privilege—not a right—to elect from amongst their own members someone to go on to Glasgow Corporation. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) stated that the Merchants House has a membership of 1,000. The average number of persons in a Glasgow electoral ward is 19,000.
In these modern days, who would justify such a situation? All members of the Merchants House already have votes in the city or in some other electoral area and can elect a councillor somewhere in the country. Therefore in electing a dean who is a councillor these people are exercising a dual franchise.
Originally, the functions of these two representatives were to issue licences, and I am surprised that hon. Members on the other side who are great believers in free enterprise should support, perhaps unwittingly, those who dispense licences still in restricting mercantile business within the limits of the city today. They also had certain judicial functions and certain duties in the administration of charitable funds, but the monopoly was abolished as far back as 1846. They still exercise minor jurisdiction through the Dean of Guilds Court, but nowadays most people recognise this office to be effete and quite ineffectual outside the charitable function which has been mentioned.
Membership of the Merchants House is not easily come by; there are heavy fees

to be paid for the privilege—£20 for membership of the Merchants House. I want particularly to draw the attention of the House to a very important statement made in paragraph 2 of the objects of this association. Membership is open to men "of known substantiality"—what a horrible word—"and good repute established in Glasgow or Western Scotland with Glasgow connections". The operative words are "or Western Scotland". I take exception, and so do many of my hon. Friends, to people who reside in Helensburgh, Prestwick and Whitecraigs coming into the city and, through their membership of one of these bodies, electing someone to vote—as they always do—against the representatives of the Labour Party in the city chamber. I object, for example, to Sir Hugh Fraser, who is a millionaire and whose Rolls-Royce was recently asked for at the circus at Monte Carlo, residing in Milngavie and travelling into the city of Glasgow to one of these organisations and by virtue of his membership sending someone to the council chamber.
It is claimed that since companies have no vote, businessmen are not fully represented in the affairs of the city. Reference to the diary of Glasgow Corporation should soon help to dispel any fears on that score, because the record shows that nearly 30 of the members are company directors. That, I think, ensures that businessmen have a fair share; but in any case, is it not said by these very representatives that they are not there representing business interests? Always they represent, as it is said, the overall interests of the community, and not businessmen at all. I will later show that they do very much represent the businessman's point of view. My hon. Friend did make the point that the Co-operative Movement and the trade unions as organisations would have the same right as corporate bodies to have representation on the corporation.
With regard to the Trades House, it similarly was vested with judicial and charitable functions many years ago. It consists of representatives from 14 incorporated trades in Glasgow. Their representatives here are only 64 in number, and these 64 elect the Deacon Convener who automatically goes to the corporation. It is true that the total membership was just over 9,000 in September, 1955, but here again one


becomes a member of this organisation only on payment of a fine. A man must be entered in the burgess book of the corporation and must pay a fee to get into these close corporations.
I have here a table of the fees which are payable. To be entered on the burgess book of Glasgow, which is the first condition before acceptance by one of the incorporated trades, whether a man knows anything about a trade or is interested in it or not, the fees are these. First of all, for a far hand—which means, I think, that he can be far removed from being a weaver or hatter or gardener, or whatever it may be—the fee for entry is £5 14s. 6d. For the eldest son of a previous member, with his father still living, the fee is £1 16s.; but, if the father happens to be dead, then the fee is £1 7s. 6d. So it goes down to the younger son, eldest daughter, younger daughter, till even the son-in-law can become a member on payment of the appropriate fee. Registration on the burgess book is a condition precedent to membership of one of these incorporated trades.
That is not an end of the matter. To be accepted at all, a man must pay a fee for entry of from £80 to £90. That is the fee for entry into one of the incorporated trades, the hammermen, cordiners, maltmen, skinners, masons, barbers, bonnetmakers, tailors, weavers, bakers, wrights and coopers, fleshers or gardeners. Of course, the members may not know very much about those trades. A hammermen, for example, can be connected with the shipbuilding industry, but he might not know the sharp end of the ship from the blunt end. A bonnetmaker may know no more about bonnets than that they are an alternative to bowler hats when going to mix with the motley crowd. For that privilege of being a member, the fee is £80 or £90.
The bill for Royal Burghs of 1833, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, made no provision for this purpose. It was another institution, another place—if I may mention the House of Lords—which inserted the Clause which restored the privilege and put matters right.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Put matters wrong.

Mr. Hannan: Yes, put matters wrong. One would expect just that kind of thing

from another place, since this is privilege of the first order. It is certainly not in keeping with the feelings of a democratic people.
The Royal Commission, in 1935, said:
In the recent Act of Parliament relative to the election of burgh councils, a certain anomaly has been adopted in reference to a few burghs, the expediency of which we feel ourselves compelled to question. In each of the burghs of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Perth the Dean of Guild, elected by the guild-brethren, and, in each of the two former burghs, the Deacon Convenor, elected by the convenery is, by that Act, declared to be, in virtue of these elections, a constituent member of Council.
The Royal Commission concluded that it could not understand why these offices should be continued, and it recommended that they should be dispensed with.
It seems to be perfectly clear to most people that this is certainly not in the interests of equity and fairness, and the Bill would go a long way to assuage the feelings of many people in Glasgow who suffered a great sense of injustice as the result of the 1949 elections, when these two offices were used to bolster up the minority party. The result of the elections was that the party of which I am proud to be a member was in the majority by one—56 to 55: The Deacon Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convenor were consequently in a position to decide who should be Lord Provost. The Glasgow Herald of 4th May, 1949, said:
These non-elected members have usually voted with the Progressives, but now, when they hold the balance, they may hesitate to use their powers.
It might have been a reasonable expectation that they would not act in a provacative fashion, but party dogma was too strong and party whips were exercised in local government. Yet many members of the Conservative Party decry the introduction by the Labour Party of politics into local government. An urgent telegram was even sent abroad—

Mrs. Alice Cullen: To Paris.

Mr. Hannan: —to bring one of the representatives back in time to vote. By that means, the minority party became the majority party. Over-weening ambition carried the day. Many members of the then majority party were ashamed of this action, and at first they threatened to abstain, but party pressure was applied and they voted.
That situation will never recur, because, with or without these two offices, my party will be in control in Glasgow for many years to come. Nevertheless, it is the principle of the thing which is wrong, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading because it will restore equity and fairmindedness and a greater pride in democracy than there is in the present situation.

8.25 p.m.

Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has forgotten two things. He said that for many years Glasgow would have a Socialist majority. He has forgotten that the same sort of thing was said in this House in 1945—that the Labour Party was here for thirty years. Things do not always work out that way.
When talking about the election of the Lord Provost in 1949, the hon. Member also forgot a similar happening in London, the other way round, in 1947.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: No.

Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Yes, it is true. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to speak later. If he is called, he can then give his views. If hon. Members look up the records of the London County Council and the Glasgow Town Council they will find very great similarity between the two cases.

Dr. Mabon: No.

Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: That is my opinion, and I have expressed it. Other hon. Members can say what they think later if they are given an opportunity to speak.

Mrs. Cullen: In London the aldermen were chosen by elected members.

Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: I do not wish to proceed with that point because it seems to have raised rather a stishey.
All I want to say is that, as representing the City of Perth where we have a Dean of Guild only, I think that, indirectly, the passage of the Bill would certainly affect that city and other cities which have been mentioned. I believe the Bill is based on party political prejudice. That is unfortunate. However, Parliamentary authority was given to

these honourable offices being maintained and having representation on the town council. Consequently, a Private Bill is not the means for withdrawing that authority.
If it is wrong to have that situation in Glasgow, it is wrong to have it elsewhere, and it is Parliament which should decide, as it decides all representation in local and Parliamentary government, what the situation should be, and that should be done in a Government Bill. This Bill, being a Private Bill, should not be given the weight that attaches to a big Measure like a Government Bill affecting the representation of the people. I hope that the House will reject the Bill on those grounds alone. If it is thought right that those offices should be done away with as representative offices, Parliamentary authority should start with Parliament and not with an outside body.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a very pertinent point about the comparison between the London County Council and the Glasgow Corporation. I put it to him that there is a fundamental difference in the case which we are discussing. In the case of the London County Council all the persons concerned had fought their way to the council chamber through elections, but in the case of Glasgow that was not so in respect of these two members. Does that not change the situation?

Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is at fault. The aldermanic bench is not subject to election in the same way as the councillors are, and the election of the aldermanic bench is done by the elected councillors. The aldermen themselves are not elected. Therefore, the case is very apposite.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I do not wish to detain the House tonight because hon. Members with a more intimate interest in this Bill than I have desire to speak. But we have had speeches from hon. Members representing Edinburgh and Perth who have intimated by their arguments that they are against this Bill because the position in relation to Glasgow Corporation is similar to that which obtains in their cities, and what the Glasgow Corporation does may adversely affect the cities they represent.
I represent the City of Dundee, which is one of the cities affected by this matter. We have one unelected member, the Lord Dean of Guild, and there have been occasions when we have reached a position similar to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), and where there was a danger of an unelected member ruling the city because he held the balancing vote. I wish to inform the House that Dundee Corporation, far from feeling affronted by the Bill brought by Glasgow Corporation before this House tonight, is in fact in process of bringing forward a Bill of its own. I hope that the precedent set by the House tonight will make clear the way for that Bill.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. J. C. George: I have not had the advantage enjoyed by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) of serving for many years on the Glasgow Town Council, but I have spent a great deal of my life in association with the industry of the West of Scotland and I now represent a Glasgow constituency, so I am interested in this matter.
To the issue raised in this Bill I apply only one simple test. Will the expulsion of the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener from the Town Council improve the government of the city? Will their banishment mean that the Council will be better informed? Will it reach wiser decisions, and will their removal take away a handicap for the good government of Glasgow? To that simple issue I turn my mind.
In my view, the passage of this Bill will have a deleterious effect on the government of the city. To remove two widely experienced men, fully informed of the practice and intentions of industry and business in the city, and upon which the city depends so heavily for its prosperity and progress, cannot in my mind fail to therefore I shall oppose this Bill.
damage the work of the corporation, and, therefore, I shall oppose this Bill.
The historical concept of the two houses, the Merchants House and the Trades House, have been adequately dealt with, but it is worthy of note that, as these two house grew in membership and importance, so did the great city of Glasgow grow. When the city first got its charter the population of Glasgow

was just over 7,000; now it is over 1¼ million. Today and in the debates on this subject which have taken place in the House, hon. Gentlemen opposite have never hesitated to say how much they appreciate the value and the integrity of men sent to the corporation by these two bodies.
The Merchants House and the Trades House have played an important part in the great progress of the city of Glasgow, and the rights which they have enjoyed since 1605 went unchallenged until the Royal Commission on Municipal Corporations in Scotland reported in 1833. I mention this because great play has been made with that Report this evening. Certainly, that Royal Commission said some scathing things about these unelected members at that time. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) quoted from this Report. He said, in effect, "We have been unable to discover any reason why these particular corporations should be endowed with that extraordinary privilege. In fact, it gives them double representation on the council." Roughly speaking, that is what the hon. Gentleman said.
But that is not the whole quotation. It is only a part taken out of a paragraph on page 94 of the Report. What that body said was:
Members of these Corporations are also with a few exceptions qualified electors and thus the practical result will be to bestow on them a double share of representation on the general council of the Burgh.
That was true in 1833, but it is not true today.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that the rights of these bodies had not been challenged between 1605 and 1833. That would have been true had they only sent these two people from time to time. But the actual fact is that from 1605 until the passing of the Burgh Reform Act they formed the whole council. They picked the Provost and did everything.

Mr. George: The fact is that the position of the Lord Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener on the Town Council was not challenged from 1605 until 1833. That is a fact, and I was dealing with the quotation.
Before I was interrupted I was saying that what was true in 1833 is not true today. Since that date we have seen many changes in the business life of the


country and in methods of travel. We have seen the growth and expansion of limited liability companies, the coming in of the railways and the introduction of the motor car. Now, with few exceptions, we see train loads of businessmen leaving Glasgow for Ayr and Troon and other districts. We see hundreds of motor cars leaving Glasgow with businessmen for places outwith that city. It is no longer true to say that what the Commission said in 1833 applies today. With few exceptions, it said, the electors then had a double vote in the City of Glasgow. That is not true today. There is a vast number of electors who leave the city and have no vote in the city but who have great interests in the city and have played a tremendous part in the progress and prosperity of the City of Glasgow.
It is vital that Glasgow Town Council should retain the continuing interest and loyalty of these people in the affairs of the town council and of the city. It is not putting it too high to say that the advance of Glasgow depends in great measure upon the energy, enterprise, zeal and loyalty of these people who do not reside within the city.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The hon. Member is putting forward an interesting argument. Would he be logical about it and go on to argue that the workers who invest their labour in Glasgow, but who happen to live outside the city boundaries, should also be given a second vote?

Mr. George: I am arguing that these businessmen, with the growth of the limited liability company, leaving Glasgow every day but leaving within the city their vital interests, play a tremendous part as the years go by in the progress and prosperity, not just of the city, but of those workmen to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, and it is essential that we keep the continuing loyalty of these people in the affairs of the Glasgow Town Council.

Mr. T. Fraser: Answer the question.

Mr. George: I am not giving way any more. I am saying that it is vital for Glasgow Town Council to keep the continuing interests and loyalty of these business people in the town council's affairs. It is vital, I believe, that the council should be in reception of their

advice and that of the representatives we send to the town council from the Trades House and the Merchants House. I honestly believe that the retention of these two gentlemen, bringing their information as to the prospect and progress of the industries in the city, will be of benefit to the town council and not a detriment to it.

Dr. Mabon: rose—

Mr. George: I have given way three times and will not give way again.
This was not challenged again from 1833 until 1900, when Dundee put forward an Amendment to withdraw it, and no opposition was put forward to the officers of the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener in that Bill of 1900. In 1934. Glasgow raised this issue but was refused permission to put forward a Bill. In 1935, they again raised this issue, and it was defeated in this House by 190 votes to 52.
The hon. Member for Govan made some reference to Sir Robert Horne's speech on that occasion. In reading the speeches made in the course of that debate, I find that they ran to 55 columns of HANSARD, and not more than two columns are devoted by Labour and other Members to the question of the Deacon Convener or the Dean of Guild. That surely does not show great excitement or indignation. To my mind, it shows a half-hearted opposition to the principle of the Bill at the time.

Dr. Mabon: May I point out to the hon. Member that in that debate in 1935 we were concerned with at least three other major projects, one of which was in connection with the municipal bank? With all those matters mixed up in one debate a considerable discussion could not be devoted to this matter, particularly when there were three other Bills to be dealt with that night.

Mr. George: I quite agree that many matters of great moment and contention were included in the Bill, but it is not illogical to think that a small portion of the time would be allocated to the issues now before us—and two columns out of more than 55 does not seem to show great excitement or indignation about this issue.
The hon. Member for Govan quoted from Sir Robert Horne's speech. I tried


to find the words he used, but I could not do so. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member was trying to mislead the House. All I can find Sir Robert Horne saying upon the subject is:
There is the question of the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener. I would say to members of the corporation: What are they making all this pother about? Cannot they bear to see two people who are in general of a different political colour from their own? Are they going to sacrifice the reputation of the Corporation as a great business organisation for such good as they may get from a mere paltry prejudice. I would ask my hon. Friend opposite to revise his point of view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1935; Vol. 299, c. 1860.]
That is what he said, and it is very sound, and applies equally tonight as it did then.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry that other matters prevented me from hearing what the hon. Member said about me. Is he disputing that the quotation I used earlier was not taken from Sir Robert Home's speech in the Second Reading debate in 1935? If so, I can assure him that I extracted that quotation today.

Mr. George: I said that I could not find it. I said that I was sure that the hon. Gentleman did not want to mislead the House. All I could find was what I have quoted, and I have read through the whole speech. I have read the whole reference by Sir Robert Horne to the issue which is now before the House.
That small allocation of time given to the issue of the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener does not tally with the hon. Member's statement that for twenty years the town council of Glasgow had the overwhelming support of the vast majority of the people of Glasgow for the removal of these two officers.

Mr. Rankin: I said a majority.

Mr. George: The hon. Member said the vast majority.

Mr. Rankin: Yes.

Mr. George: That is what happened in 1935. The matter was raised again in 1047. I admit that it was in a Consolidation Bill, and that it was therefore difficult to move Amendments, but the Secretary of State for Scotland then said that he would have tackled this issue but for the fact that he was sure that he would not get unanimity, and would be raising a very contentious issue. Two

hon. Members representing Glasgow constituencies and one representing an Edinburgh seat raised the issue, but the result of that Bill confirmed the rights and sustained the position of the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener on the Glasgow Town Council.
It has been said that these two great institutions, which once exercised a very important part in the life and trade of Glasgow, are declining and are no longer of any great importance. It is necessary to be fair about this issue and to examine the work done by these two great houses. They are an almost inseparable part of the life of the people and the institutions of Glasgow. If one goes anywhere in Glasgow—to the hospitals, technical colleges and universities—one finds that these men are giving their time, experience and ability to furthering the good of Glasgow.
It is true, perhaps, that the charitable side of their business is not now so active because under this Government it is difficult to find poor people anywhere, but that is not to say that they will not, as other charitable institutions have done, find new avenues for their work, regain their former importance and, indeed, outstrip the work which they have done in days gone by. Many charitable institutions have found, owing to the lack of poor and the improved circumstances of today, that their previous activities are not required, but new avenues are opening up and I have no doubt that with the foresight and the policy of these two great institutions—and, of course, the necessary funds—they will have a future even greater than their past.
If one sticks closely to this question of not electing members and sticks slavishly to the belief that the ballot box will always provide the right man with the right job, then we have a very narrow argument on which to go forward. If we want to be fair to the Dean of Guild Court let us look at the work which it has done for Glasgow in the past. In recent weeks, we have listened to a new slum clearance policy being devised and driven through so that the conditions remaining in many of our large cities will be rapidly improved.
One has only to look at a report in the Glasgow Herald to see what has been done over the last hundred years. That newspaper made a special point of reporting in full the improvements made during


that time. It will be seen from the article the steps taken and the expenditure involved in the city's own great slum clearance activities. In those days, the Dean of Guild Court did not have architects coming along with plans all nicely arranged giving the size and strength of the building. The members of the Court had to see the job themselves after the application came before them. They cleaned up Glasgow. If some hon. Members opposite would take the trouble to read the history of the city which some of them represent they would see that the Dean of Guild Court gave instructions for large numbers of buildings to be immediately demolished. Those were its instructions, the buildings were immediately demolished and Glasgow was cleaned up.

Mr. Rankin: Not in the way the hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. George: I will quote one instance which is both interesting and amusing to illustrate the type of buildings which existed in the Gorbals at that time.

Mrs. Cullen: We are living with those buildings every day.

Mr. George: It is reported that an Irish tenant had died, and, as was the custom then and is, I think, the custom still, a number of his friends—in this case twenty of them—entered his wooden house and ascended three storeys. The corpse was lying in the corner of the room with a bowl of salt on its chest and the Bible and candles around it. The twenty men began to enjoy themselves. They became rather noisy and started to dance. The floor gave way and the whole building collapsed in front. They had to shore it up. It is reported that the next morning the Dean of Guild arrived on the scene with his men only to find to their astonishment that the twenty men were still there drinking away and seeing their friend happily into the other world. The Dean of Guild at once ordered the demolition of the house and of all the houses around.
The Dean of Guild Court has done great work for Glasgow in the past in ordering demolitions and the erection in the last twenty years of those majestic new buildings in the city.

Mrs. Cullen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to decry the Gorbals constituency in the way that he is?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman now allow me to quote—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) cannot intervene unless the hon. Member in possession of the House gives way.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I requested the hon. Member to allow me to read the quotation from Sir Robert Horne's speech to which I referred.

Mr. George: I will give the hon. Gentleman time to read his quotation later on.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I understand it, the hon. Member who has possession of the House has not given way, and that being so, the hon. Member for Govan cannot now intervene.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. George: Very well.

Mr. Rankin: I referred to the speech of Sir Robert Home on 26th March, 1935. The hon. Member said that he had read the whole of the speech and could not find the words that I had quoted. He said in column 1855 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 26th March, 1935:
… the House ought to grant a Second Reading to a Bill if there is a prima facie case for examination."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1935; Vol. 299, c. 1855.]
Those words are in that speech.

Mr. George: We are this evening discussing the Deacon Convener and the Dean of Guild.

Mrs. Cullen: And the Gorbals.

Mr. George: I still maintain the position that I originally adopted. I read every word that Sir Robert Home said with regard to the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener, and I stand by every word that I read out. The reference from which the hon. Gentleman quoted does


not apply specifically to the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener.
I should like to read a few lines from Crawford on Sketches of Trades House, page 83:
The Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener were yearly and continuously elected under the provisions of the Letter of Guildry' and took their seat at the Council Board; and as these persons were in some respects the representatives of the Burgesses their presence tended to remove the odium which attached to the town council as a self-elected body.
A full circle has been turned. Their presence removed the odium which attached to a self-elected body. This evening their presence excites the resentment of a popularly elected body. If we stick slavishly to the worship of the ballot box and depend on the ballot box turning out the right man for the right job every time, we may find, as we have found elsewhere in this country, that we have not the right man in the right job at the proper time.
It has been said that they are non-elected members. It is true they are not elected by popular vote, but these two men who sit on the Glasgow Town Council reached their position by an extremely arduous method of selection, election and service to the city. They have come through an extremely arduous route. They then exercise that privilege which has been condemned—the privilege of giving their time, ability and experience to the furtherance of the good of the city in which we have the greatest interest.
It is at this time of particular importance that we should study the state of local government and see whether this is the right time to take away undoubted benefits to any council. Each council should study its own position. The present state of local government causes us deep concern. We have here a picture of eager, willing candidates backed up by anxious excited electors taking up this issue among the many issues, and putting their whole heart behind it. That is not the truth today. In Scotland, including Glasgow, I am sorry to say, we have apathetic candidates. The parties have got to go and look for candidates and entice people to stand for the town council. We have apathetic electors.
To talk about having the support of the vast majority of the people of Glasgow is nonsense. Many candidates are elected by only 30 per cent. of the

electorate. This is not an issue along those lines; this is a party political issue which is being raised. I want to see local councils keeping whatever candidates they have. They have none to give away. Local government is in danger of dying through lack of appropriate candidates. This Bill would be a means of weakening the Corporation of Glasgow. I hope the House will support the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I lost my phrase; I meant that I hoped the House would not support the Bill.
The Merchants House and the Trades House have been intimately identified with the growth of the city and have contributed to its prosperity. They have shared in its municipal government and generously supported its voluntary institutions. They have-furthered the cause of education and expanded industry and have spread its commerce over the globe. They still maintain a healthy and vigorous existence and exert a valuable influence for the good of Glasgow, and I trust that their responsibilities will not be diminished by the House accepting the Bill.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. J. McGovern: I have listened with interest, to a number of speeches made by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) paid a very fine tribute to men who, if they had been attacked individually in the House, would have been justified by the speech which he made. But no attack was being made on the individuals at all, and no criticism was being made of them.
The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has paid a fine tribute to the employing classes of Glasgow. This has nothing to do with the question at issue in the Bill. A fine point arises here, whether or not democracy is to prevail or whether we are to retain the old idea of non-elected persons on our public bodies.
There has been a gradual struggle in this country and in other countries throughout the world towards complete democracy, and in the onward march to democracy we have had to root out all these non-elected positions and all the time to support the popularly elected person in local and national assemblies.
In the onward march in recent years we have got rid of the plural vote, university representation and business representation. The City of London had its financial representatives sitting in the House. All these have been steadily eliminated, because the one answer which we have to totalitarians throughout the world is that of complete faith in democracy, not only in words but in action and in carrying it through at every level.
One hears continually from hon. Members opposite and from the Press in this country about shop stewards' movements dominated by Communists. It is said that those movements do not represent the people in the workshops because those people have not turned out for the meetings of their trade union branches in the workshops. It is said that they represent a minority in the industries of the country.
Here we have something less than that. We have two gentlemen who represent the trades in Glasgow and nothing but the trades. Nobody disputes that those bodies are carrying on a great deal of work within their own sphere, and are assisting people in need. Many of us know of cases which have been treated in a very generous and decent manner. Many homes may have been saved and many a breadwinner assisted during illness and in particularly bad circumstances by those bodies. That is no reason for coming here and putting up a case for a continuation of that representation on the Glasgow Council.
What does all this mean? Hon. Gentlemen say that the present position has never been challenged since 1932. All that means is that a completely Conservative-dominated Council did not desire to challenge representation of that character, but with the growth of democracy and of Labour representation there have been times when it was difficult to justify these two gentlemen operating in the sphere of what is called "non-political work". When a man says to me, "I am not interested in politics" I always know that he is going to vote against me. That is his defence against getting into an argument with me about his political point of view.
I have respect for people who have a point of view and defend it, but I have

no time for defending this type of representation. One thing I have discovered in going round the world is that the British desire to hold on to a privilege has been responsible for bringing us to the mess in which we are at present. We have tried to hold on to every form of material power through domination and dictatorship.
If we accept this type of corporate representation many other bodies in Glasgow will be entitled to claim such representation, bodies like the Co-operative society, the trade unions, the trades council, the Labour associations, the Salvation Army, the Celtic Rangers Football Club and the Masonic order. If we embark upon that kind of representation we go back to the period in history when we had what exists at present in Spain, corporate representation of the trades and interests of the country.
Members of the Conservative Party prate of democracy with their tongues in their cheeks, and yet, when they get an opportunity of staking a claim for representation of a dictatorship kind they will back it to the very death. We hope that there are members of the Conservative Party who recognise democracy and who will say in the House tonight, "We realise that this kind of representation is outmoded, and although it may have served a useful purpose at one time, should not now be encouraged. In the Conservative Party we stand for democracy, and therefore we are out to eliminate this form of representation in the local authorities".
My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) mentioned the time when we had a controversy in Glasgow about the election for the lord provost. I was at the corporation meeting, and I heard the story, the most diabolical story of the press gang in operation that I have ever heard. They followed one of the men to Paris and brought him back by aeroplane. They threatened him that unless he voted for the provost they would deal with him. Two men, just as if they had been Bulganin and Khrushchev, on each side of him, marched him into the corporation chamber and he had to vote for the election of a Tory lord provost. There was an elected majority of one on the Labour side for the election for a Labour lord provost. Such behaviour did not


only harm the Conservative Party but harmed democracy itself. It should not be encouraged by any decent thinking man or woman who wants to have real democratic representation in our life.
I will accept what has been mentioned about these two gentlemen—that they are honourable men and good men who do a great deal of good work in their general lives. At the same time, the hon. Member for Pollok told us that there is a dearth of candidates. We all know that. There is a dearth on both the Conservative and Labour sides. If these men are so good—and I have no reason to think that they are not good—the Conservative Party should find seats for them on the Corporation, on an elected basis, to give their time and energy and what is more, according to the advertisements which we have heard tonight, their money to assist the City of Glasgow and to help its citizens in their dire need and distress. These men could find their place in the democratic set-up; and, therefore, we shall not waste any time or any tears on whether or not the Dean of Guild will be eliminated.
What does it matter to us whether Perth. Edinburgh or Dundee or some other town has not yet made representations? Here is the voice of democracy in Glasgow asking the House to use its judgment, intelligence and good sense to pass the Bill and to eliminate this travesty of representation in Glasgow. I am amazed to find that any hon. Member coming from Glasgow as a democrat should come here tonight and encourage this form of representation. I have nothing against the men. I do not want to discuss them. I am discussing the principle. The principle is bad. It should be opposed, and I find myself 100 per cent. with the Glasgow Labour Corporation in its demand that this anomaly should be ended tonight.

9.8 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I am sorry to inflict two speeches on the House in one day. I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) will be as accommodating and friendly tonight as she was this afternoon.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am afraid not.

Captain Duncan: The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) spoke about the onward march of democracy as opposed to the dictatorships of this world. He said that the whole philosophy of Socialist thought was to have complete and utter democracy as the best method of opposing complete dictatorship. He said that in all local and national assemblies that should be the democratic aim.
Let us examine that proposition. This Parliament is not democratic. There are three elements in the British Parliament—the Monarchy, another place and this House. Only this House is elected. The other two are not. We have not complete 100 per cent. elected democracy in our own Parliament. We have nothing like it.
Let us look at the local assemblies. It is true that, broadly speaking, in Scotland we have complete democracy, with only four exceptions, but aldermen are not elected in England. They are elected by a council after the election of the council. I fall back on my own experience, because I was a member of London County Council at one time. In those days we had 124 elected members and 20 aldermen. The aldermen were elected for six years and the councillors for three. When I was elected it was generally considered a good thing that there should be a body of people who would continue the administration from year to year. The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) is here, and he will agree with me that the idea of having a period of service of six years for the aldermen gave a measure of continuity in the administration of the council, which was of benefit to the council and to the inhabitants of London.
It has been said that this is a party political move, and I shall not contradict that statement. If it is, I warn those who are indulging in it that it will not necessarily benefit the Labour Party. Let us take the case of the London County Council election of 1949, although the numbers have altered since I was on the council.
There were elected then 64 Conservatives, 64 Socialists, and one Liberal. At that time, assuming that the Liberal was anti-Socialist the anti-Socialist majority was one. But there were also the aldermen, and aldermen can vote for the election of the chairman,


The effect of the aldermen being there, most of whom were Labour, gave the Council a Labour majority, a Labour chairman and a Labour council. That can be vouched for by the hon. Member for Clapham. So I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that if this is a party political move it may redound to their discredit in the future.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) tried to make the point that the Bill affected Glasgow alone. That statement was contradicted by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) who, in his short speech, said definitely that Dundee was watching this Bill and was in process of bringing forward one of its own to deal with its own Lord Dean of Guild in the same way as is proposed in this Bill.
I have had a letter from the Lord Dean of Guild of Dundee. It is not private, and it is written from the Guild Clerk's office. It starts with the usual reference to the historical importance of the Lord Dean of Guild of Dundee and to the great work that the Dean of Guild Court has done in the past. This was ably described in the case of Glasgow by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson), I quote:
The Deans of Guild of Dundee and Glasgow have for centuries been men of outstanding merit and experience in business affairs and are admitted on all sides to have been really useful members of their respective Corporations. Therefore to abolish their seats in the Town Councils of the two Cities is obviously a political move on the part of the Socialist majorities of these Councils who, upon the excuse that ex officio membership of a Town Council is undemocratic, seek to remove a Town Councillor whom they regard as likely to hold moderate views.
That letter is signed by the Lord Dean of Guild, who is personally known to me as having himself done a great deal for the City of Dundee and, in particular, for its higher education. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) would acknowledge that if he were in his place. He was chairman of one of the main committees of the Dundee Institute of Art and Technology, and is a thorough and worthy citizen of that great city.
I cannot do less than mention that tonight, because I believe that even though his party, if he has a party, is in a minority, the minority's views are entitled to be heard in the House just as much as

are the majority views as expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
I conclude by saying that I do not believe that this complete 100 per cent. elected majority idea of the hon. Member for Shettleston is necessarily the right answer to dictatorship. There is a middle course—the system which we have evolved in this country, where we have partly elected and partly nominated or hereditary organisations; so that we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) said, in this Glasgow case, people who have been elected, selected and elected again before they go through the sieve and reach the high office of Lord Dean of Guild or Deacon Convener.
That compromise solution is typically British. I believe that this Socialist logic is not the British answer. Socialist logic does not work. The great thing in the British Constitution is compromise and making a thing work. However illogical in theory a thing may be, the great principle in British politics, history and tradition is that if it works, it should remain. It has been abundantly proved on all sides tonight that these two offices are honourable historical offices of great importance, and that their council representation should not be abolished.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. William Reid: I rise to support the Bill. Owing to the lateness of the hour and because of the request of the hon. Members who are to conclude the debate, I shall speak for not more than a few minutes, but there are some statements which must be answered. The first statement with which I wish to deal was made by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) who, to show how fair the Deacon Convener and the Dean of Guild were, said that during his membership of Glasgow Town Council twenty years ago both of those men voted with the Labour Party in favour of generating electricity at Pinkstone.
He was most unfortunate in using that illustration, because I then happened to be chairman of the Transport Committee. There was no such proposal twenty years ago to generate electricity at Pinkstone. In fact, electricity has been generated at Pinkstone since 1898, fifty-eight years ago, so that I am afraid that in the twenty years during which the hon. Member was a member of the town council he must


have got mixed up with his dates. I happen to have been a member for thirty years, both before the hon. Member entered the council and after he had left it.
The next point with which I want to deal, and that very briefly, was made by the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). He said that if we wanted to know something about the good work done by the Deacon Convener and the Dean of Guild, we had only to look at the housing conditions of Glasgow. I ask any hon. Member to pay a visit to Glasgow and to look around at their handiwork.
Look at housing conditions in Glasgow. They are a disgrace to civilisation. Glasgow is the worst housed city in the United Kingdom, and if housing conditions in Glasgow, according to the hon. Member for Pollok, are to be taken as a criterion of the good work done by the Dean of Guild, then the sooner the whole thing is wiped out of existence the better.
As the hon. Member for Maryhill Hannan) and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said, in 1949, a lord provost was foisted on the Glasgow Corporation against the will and votes of the elected representatives. As has already been said, one representative had to be brought back from France in order to bolster up a minority vote to put in the civic chair someone who was not wanted by the elected representatives. The feeling of disgust in Glasgow was so great that three years later the city saw to it that a mistake like that should never happen again; the people of Glasgow increased the Labour Party's membership to such an extent that on the next occasion a Labour representative was elected as lord provost of the city.
I have no desire to detain the House any longer. I sincerely trust that every fair-minded Member of this House will support the Bill promoted by the City of Glasgow, which is a fair Bill, having the support of the vast majority of Glasgow's citizens.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Walter Elliot: It will be admitted by all that we have had a very interesting debate tonight; it has been all the more interesting since it has not been confined narrowly to the affairs of Glasgow alone, but has embraced the affairs of many

other cities of Scotland and, indeed, has gone back, as we have a habit of doing in Scotland, to first principles on the subject of representative assemblies.
Of course, there have been arguments affecting Glasgow alone. I think the hon. Member for Provan (Mr. W. Reid) was a little rash, if I may say so, in referring to housing conditions in Glasgow after twenty years of Socialist rule. If that is the state of affairs after twenty years of elected Socialist rule, it is high time there were some other nominated representatives on the council. If the hon. Member appeals to the record of the Socialist majority in Glasgow in the matter of housing, he is leaning upon the very frailest of broken reeds. The housing record of the Socialist majority in Glasgow is one of sabotage, destruction and incompetence. I think it would be more kind to pass rapidly from that aspect of the matter.
We have, after all, to consider first principles. Those first principles were discussed by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and they were vigorously re-emphasised by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). The hon. Member for Shettleston went so far as to say that he thought it was terrible that persons not elected by popular vote should continue to exercise functions for which they had no popular mandate and no responsibility.
I must quote powerful opposition if I am to overcome a verdict such as that. I am sure I shall have little difficulty in doing so. I shall quote the former leader of the Socialist Party, Mr. Attlee, now Earl Attlee, who sits in our Parliamentary assembly, in another place, exercising functions for which he has no popular mandate—and with universal acceptance. When the Socialists claim that it is a scandal for people, who have no popular mandate and no responsibility to do so, to sit in legislative assemblies, they had better first address their complaints to the former Leader of their party. So far as I know, there has been no suggestion either by the former Leader or the present Leader of the Socialist Party that the other place should be abolished. In any case there, in that place, the former Leader of the Socialist Party now sits, by universal consent and general acclamation, exercising functions for which he has no popular mandate and no responsibility.
Next, there was the powerful argument in favour of "one man, one vote", which was brought forward with great strength by the hon. Member for Govan. Again, I must seek very strong authority if I am to counter the argument. Therefore, I will appeal to Caesar in the form of Mr. John Rankin, M.P. I have in my hand his testament of faith. It is called "Though Cowards Flinch", and it is signed by himself and a number of other eminent and vigorous exponents of the Socialist faith. In particular, the views of the hon. Member for Govan are very vigorously stated, and I would call them to the attention of the House. The hon. Member is here speaking of voting; he speaks of the "multiple voting" in the Labour Party. His view is this:
The principle of multiple voting is firmly embedded in the Labour Party constitution. Most Labour Party members have two votes cast in their names—one by the constituency party and one by the national trade union. Many have two or three others cast by such bodies as the Fabian Society, the Royal Arsenal Co-op. or the Socialist Medical Association.
Also:
We believe that the attempt to remove this at the present time would be resisted tooth and nail …
What is their verdict?
We suggest that it remains.
That is the view of Mr. John Rankin, which I commend to the hon. Member for Govan.
When we have dealt with those two points of principle, we come to the practical question at issue, which is whether or not certain members should be removed from the Glasgow Town Council. It is a very odd thing that no one has suggested that these members, either now or in the past, have been unworthy members, that they have performed their duties unsatisfactorily, or that they are anything but admirable members of that assembly. Indeed, it would be very difficult to argue otherwise.
One can quote name after name—Mr. Daniel Duncan, of the Clyde Trust; Mr. James Legget, who served with the Ministry of Food; Colonel Walter McFarlane; Mr. Allan Dickson; Sir John Train; and Mr. Francis Beattie. A number of those men graduated from other positions to the two responsible offices, and, indeed, the last two became

respected and useful Members of Parliament. In the case of the Dean of Guild, there was the Convener for Special Areas, Sir David Alan Hay. There was also Lieut.-Colonel Norman MacLeod, a name well known in connection with the Church of Scotland and the Boys Brigade and other very important activities, and also Mr. Norman Sloane. I need not weary the House with a recital of these members.
First, then, there is nothing contrary to principle in these persons holding office without actually being elected. Secondly, we have proved that the principle of "one man, one vote" so far from being repugnant to the Labour Party, is firmly embedded in the very constitution of the party itself.

Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman has not proved anything of the sort.

Mr. Elliot: It is true that I only read out one of the Labour Party's confessions of faith, but it is the confession of faith of the hon. Member who was put up to open the case for the Bill. It was he who said that this principle is firmly embedded in the constitution of the Labour Party and ought to remain, which is good enough, I think, for this House; and we must take it as the opinion of some at least of the Labour Party.
We not only have the instance of good members which I have quoted, but we have proof by common consent of the hon. Members of this House that members of the Glasgow Town Council so chosen have been good representatives and have honestly done a good job in the civic assembly of our city.
The final point is, that it was said that on one special occasion these two representatives exercised a decisive vote in choosing the lord provost for the city. It was said even that one representative came back from abroad to vote. I must say that when one considers the lengths to which the Whips on both sides in this House will go, to suggest that it is wrong that someone in full exercise of his health and strength should return from abroad to vote is a queer accusation to make against anyone.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that these two positions are automatically the prerogative of


one party in Glasgow and that one representative may have come back from abroad?

Mr. Elliot: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have known better than to make such a point. The suggestion that this gentleman came specially back from abroad was made by hon. Members opposite. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not suggest that this gentleman, who had a right to vote, and who was voting in a responsible way for a particular candidate, should not have the right to return to cast his vote.
It was not simply a case of casting an automatic vote for a party candidate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. The Labour majority on the town council, as we all knew, had the opportunity at that time of choosing several candidates for the post. It is common knowledge that there were candidates that they might have put forward who would have commanded much wider general support than the candidate they actually put up.

Mr. Hannan: He got fifty-six votes.

Mr. Elliot: I do not think it is denied by anybody.
But I will come simply to the actual choice that was made. Did these gentlemen suggest that the lord provost of Glasgow who was selected, Victor Warren, was not a good lord provost of Glasgow? He was as good a lord provost as the town council has ever known, and it would have been a great scandal had Victor Warren gone to his death, kept from office by the party intrigues of his opponents. None of his opponents ever succeeded in surpassing the personal heroism which Victor Warren showed. [Interruption.] Questions of self-sacrifice, questions of bravery and the saving of life are important qualities in civil life just as in private life, and I should certainly bring them forward.
I am not pressing Victor Warren's war service because, I know that to some that would be like a red rag to a bull. But to say that it is unjust or invidious to state that a man, by his own personal exertions, saved two fellow creatures from drowning is a good man full of courage is to say what it manifestly wrong. To claim that courage is not of value in civic service also is obviously untrue.
Now we are all agreed that a good provost was chosen, what has become of the gravamen of the charge? This lord

provost was chosen, and he continued to fill the chair of the Town Council of Glasgow throughout his term of office with the utmost success. He was a man of great courage, both civic and physical. He was a man who brought added distinction to the chair of the Lord Provost of Glasgow, and who, at the end of his term of service, was applauded by all, even by his opponents as a worthy and dignified man. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed, he was, and tributes were paid to him on all sides. I am echoing tonight the tributes paid by opponents, as well as supporters after his term of office; which he gained by the votes of these two representatives whose actions we are investigating tonight.

Mr. James Carmichael: We are not discussing a former lord provost. We are discussing the Deacon Convener and the Dean of Guild.

Mr. Elliot: I am delighted to hear that we are not discussing the former lord provost. I have listened to nearly all of the debate, and the main argument brought up again and again was the argument of the 1949 election and the choice of lord provost made then. It will be within the recollection of the House that that was the only abiding point of argument brought up by hon. Members opposite; because they admitted that the precedents were good and the principles on which these gentlemen were chosen were principles to which they themselves had given support. Now the only point that they can make against them is that on one occasion their votes had been decisive in a certain way.
Now they say that they quite agree with the choice that was made on that occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It seems there is nothing left at all in the case in favour of this Bill advanced so confidently at the beginning of the debate.
The last argument that Members opposite can bring forward is that these seats represent an anomalous state of affairs; that they are not in accordance with the strict rules of logic.
Not only does this House flourish on anomalies, not only does the British Constitution flourish on anomalies, but we are actually about to add another great


anomaly to our existing representation in the House—with the enthusiastic support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. What is the proposal which I had the honour of commending to the House, admittedly certainly queried by a good many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side? It was the suggestion that three Members should be added to our body here from Malta. Admittedly, an anomaly would arise when they had a voice in our affairs which we would not, in turn, exercise over their affairs, and when they could vote on every aspect of our domestic work, though we could not on any of theirs. That was supported and commended enthusiastically to the House by the very same hon. Members who are now objecting to a much smaller anomaly in another part of our own country.
Let us see whether they will rule out all the other anomalies before they come to this one. Let us see if they will refuse to accept the anomaly which has recently been recommended to them and, which, as I say, most of them enthusiastically accepted. Let us see the other anomalies ruled out. Then let us see if it is necessary to remove this anomaly also. If we remove all the anomalies of the British Constitution, we shall change it from a live to a dead thing.
That is the fault of the constitutions on the Continent—that they are over-ridden by logic and those unyielding principles commended to us tonight by hon. Members opposite. They are strait-jacketed until they are stifled and die. Ours is a live constitution, perfectly capable of absorbing and flourishing upon anomalies which will live on long after those other constitutions have been thrown into the wastepaper basket.
We do not want a rigid mathematical constitution, either in this House or in the great local authority assemblies which are also a glory of this country. This is certainly not the time to imitate some of the constitutions on the Continent, which, though far more logical, are less successful in practice than ours.
The main accusation brought against the constitution of the Glasgow Town Council, with these added representatives, is one of the strongest reasons for rejecting the proposal to remove them. Hon. Members opposite say that it is

anomalous. Very well; it is anomalous. We glory in the fact. And we confidently recommend to the House the rejection of these proposals to steam-roller this and all other evidences of life out of our British Constitution.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: It is a long, long time since I heard the right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) being so entirely irrelevant. We are not discussing the personality of the lord provost, as he suggested, but the right of non-elected people to decide whom the lord provost is to be. I regret to say it, but the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with the election of Victor Warren as lord provost, was dealing with an issue the facts in relation to which he was not conversant with, since he was not a member of the local authority and never has been.
At the time of that election I was the leader of the Labour group in the council. The Labour nominee for the position of lord provost was the unanimous choice of the Labour Party, but there was a division in the Conservative ranks, and they had to dragoon the Tory members into voting for Victor Warren. Those are the facts of the situation. Any hon. Member opposite who has been associated with Glasgow Corporation will confess that of all the lord provosts of Glasgow within the last 50 years Victor Warren did not merit their approbation.
In his irrelevancies the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the various elements which constitute the Labour Party, and also with the method of voting within the Party. I could point out to him that members of the Kelvingrove Darts Club have votes, but that is nothing to do with the Bill.
I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman being so sore about our insistence upon democracy, because he was a victim of the one-man-one-vote question when he represented a university seat. We all know why he feels so sore about the position. He then went back to Kelvingrove.

Mr. Elliot: Yes—and won.

Mr. McInnes: By a handful of votes.

Mr. Elliot: I doubled my majority at the last Election.

Mr. McInnes: That shows that of all the areas of Glasgow the most unintelligent is Kelvingrove.
We have had an interesting debate, which has covered a wide range of subjects—so wide that almost all the speeches from hon. Members opposite have had absolutely no relation to the Bill. In fact, the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) dealt with almost everything but the Bill, and even when he dealt with the Bill he made entirely inaccurate statements. He was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), and I want to deal with one or two of the points he made.
The hon. Gentleman said, for example, that the Bill of 1833 expressly preserved the right of the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener to be ex officio members of Glasgow Corporation. What actually happened was there was no such. Clause in the Bill when it left the House of Commons. The Clause was inserted in another place.

Mr. Ross: By another anomaly.

Mr. McInnes: The hon. Gentlemen went on to deal with the question of the importance of the position of the Dean of Guild and of the Deacon Convener—particularly the Dean of Guild—in relation to the passing of plans for housing, streets and all types of building. But the hon. Gentleman fails to realise that the functions of the Dean of Guild would in no way be swallowed up by the passing of this Bill. That gentleman would still retain all his rights and privileges. All that the Bill does is to ensure that he shall no longer be a non-elected member of Glasgow Corporation.

Mr. J. Henderson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that I sought to emphasise the importance of having on the Corporation the Dean of Guild because of his great experience of presiding over the Dean of Guild Court?

Mr. McInnes: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the functions of the Dean of Guild are rarely discussed by the Glasgow Corporation, or by any other corporation, but particularly by the Glasgow Corporation.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to refer to the fact that this Bill in no way

represented the views of the citizens of Glasgow. What a statement to make.

Mr. Henderson: It is true.

Mr. McInnes: Surely the hon. Gentleman is conscious of the fact that the Labour Party on the Glasgow City Council represents over 300,000 of the electors, whereas the Conservative Party, of which, incidentally, only 55 per cent. of its members voted against the Bill, represent no more than 120,000 electors. Yet in spite of that fact the hon. Gentleman had the audacity to suggest that this Bill in no way represented the views of the Glasgow Corporation.
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman—if he has to be reminded—of the undemocratic action of the two non-elected people in not giving effect to the views of the citizens of Glasgow when they appointed the Lord Provost by their casting vote. The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) made the somewhat startling statement that the Dean of Guild cleaned up Glasgow. Let him indicate in what century that was done. It was certainly not in the last two centuries. The only man that I know who made an effort to clean up Glasgow was Billy Graham, and he did not have very much success either. What is the position? My hon. Friend the Member for Govan said that Glasgow is the worst housed city in Britain. I will go further and say that it is the worst housed city in Europe.
I will deal with the observations made by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove. He asked: what can one expect after twenty years of Socialist rule? In twenty years of Socialist rule we have had to contend with two centuries of Tory neglect. It is an incontrovertible fact that there is not another city in the whole of Great Britain which has built more municipal houses—over 100,000. Despite having built 100,000 municipal houses in Glasgow, we still have the legacy of the Tory Party—91,000 slums in that city.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) contended that so far as the aldermanic bench was concerned there was a degree of continuity. That is a point of view. There are at least six years' experience in the council for the aldermanic bench. But in the case of the Dean of Guild and the Deacon Convener, what is the position? They are


elected for only two years. There is not even continuity so far as their election is concerned.
It has been suggested from the benches opposite that this is a political view, that when the Socialists seek to abolish these two non-elected people it is Socialist propaganda and a Socialist viewpoint. But when the Tories seek to retain them, it is not a Tory point of view, it is always neutral or indefinable.
I want briefly to give the historical background to this matter. These two gentlemen have enjoyed the rights and privileges of sitting on the Glasgow Corporation for the past 350 years—and some of them look like it. I confess that in the seventeenth century the jurisdiction of these two gentlemen was very extensive indeed. In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries they dealt with trade, commerce and manufacture in the City of Glasgow. They had widespread responsibilities and they were very influential men.
I also confess that in that period local government generally was very restricted in its functions and operations. I would not deny that in the seventeenth century there was some justification for the election of these people to the local authorities. But today—and it is the situation of today with which we are dealing—the situation has drastically altered.
The Merchants House and the Trades House which nominate these gentlemen no longer deal with the trade and commerce of the city. They deal merely with the question of the administration of charitable funds and endowments. They have no other purpose in the life of the city. Local government, on the other hand, has expanded and extended, and today its functions and ramifications are enormous. Therefore, against that background there is no justification for the undemocratic principles that these ex officio members carry with them in their appointment to the Glasgow Corporation.
The right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove argued about the business interests of the city being represented on the city council. If we argue that businessmen

have a right to sit on a local authority to represent their business interests, we must logically argue that such organisations as trades councils which represent the workers, ought to have the same right to sit on local authorities.

As I have said, the situation has drastically changed. No longer do we stand for the sectional representation of any section, whether it be workers or employers. The situation today demands that people who stand for local government and accept the responsibilities of local government must be prepared to face the ballot box for the decision of the citizens in a democratic way. That is the only possible approach to the question. Even Parliament tidied up its own machinery when it decided to withdraw the restricted representation of universities. If that could be done in the case of Parliament, we ask that it be done in respect of local authorities.

We ask for a Second Reading of the Bill in order that the proposals contained in it shall be examined by a Select Committee. There is nothing unreasonable in that. Hon. Members opposite want to deny us even the opportunity of having the Bill examined. If the House agrees to the Second Reading and, if, in its wisdom, following its examination of the proposals in the Bill, the Select Committee recommends that the Corporation's proposals are unjustified, we shall accept that, but we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that the Select Committee has made a thorough examination of it. The House could not possibly devote the time for the full and wide examination which the situation demands. We have only two or three hours at our disposal.

I beg the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and to allow the Select Committee to make that examination. I know that the result will undoubtedly be the abolition for which we ask. At all events. I ask the House to give us the opportunity of that examination.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 167.

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)


Albu, A. H.
Blackburn, F.
Brockway, A. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, W. R.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boardman, H.
Burke, W. A.




Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pryde, D. J.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, H. E.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rankin, John


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Reid, William


Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lindgren, G. S.
Royle, C.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Short, E. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Deer, G.
McInnes, J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Dye, S.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sparks, J. A.


Finch, H. J.
McLeavy, Frank
Steele, T.


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Gibson, C. W.
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mason, Roy
Thornton, E.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, J.


Hannan, W.
Moody, A. S.
Wade, D. W.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Watkins, T. E.


Hastings, S.
Mort, D. L.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Herbison, Miss M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hobson, C. R.
Oram, A. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Holman, P.
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Holmes, Horace
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pargiter, G. A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hubbard, T. F.
Parker, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pearson, A.
Woof, R. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, A. R.
Dr. Mabon and Mr. G. M. Thomson


Irving, S. (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr P. G.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longden, Gilbert


Aitken, W. T.
Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Alport, C. J. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McKibbin, A. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Atkins, H. E.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Madden, Martin


Barber, Anthony
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Barlow, Sir John
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Green, A.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bidgood, J. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marshall, Douglas


Biggs-Davidson, J. A.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mathew, R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, R. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Body, R. F.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nairn, D. L. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Neave, Airey


Braine, B. R.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bryan, P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Page, R. G.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Carr, Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Partridge, E.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Channon, H.
Hurd, A. R.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Pott, H. P.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, J. Enoch


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Dance, J. C. G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, M.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Sir Keith
Renton, D. L. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Keegan, D.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kershaw, J. A.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Drayson, G. B.
Lagden, G. W.
Robertson, Sir David


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Leavey, J. A.
Roper, Sir Harold


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Leburn, W. G.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Duthie, W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Sharples, R. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lindsay, Marin (Soilhull)
Shepherd, William


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Llewellyn, D. T.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)







Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Studholme, H. G.
Vane, W. M. F.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wood, Hon. R.


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Teeling, W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wall, Major Patrick
Mr. J. Henderson and Mr. George.


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)



Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Postponed Proceeding on Question, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, resumed.

Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DOCTORS (UNEMPLOYMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

10.8 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter on which I have the Adjournment—the question of unemployment among doctors. I should like to apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for the fact that she has yet another Adjournment debate to answer, for she has had a great many recently.
I have two reasons for bringing this matter to the notice of the House. The first is that I feel that the Questions which I have asked on the subject in the past couple of weeks were perhaps not regarded as the serious issue which I felt they were in view of the facts at my disposal, which I now propose to place before the House.
The second and subsidiary reason is that though I have been a Member of the House for eleven months I find that we have not so far had an opportunity to debate the National Health Service and there is some doubt as to when we shall have that opportunity. Therefore, in view of the urgency of this problem, I have no alternative but to take this opportunity to bring the matter forward.
The question centres around the number of 35 doctors drawing unemployment benefit. This figure was given to me in reply to a Question which I asked the

Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. The number has been starred in the Press to some extent as "Doctors on the dole." It is obvious, however, that this small number is only a token figure, because it is clear that a professional man does not register at the employment exchange unless he feels desperate and has no other alternative.
Therefore, the figure of 35 represents a much larger figure of doctors who are not attending the employment exchange for obvious professional reasons, but are hanging about, either unemployed or under-employed, hoping for something to turn up. They are perhaps doing odd jobs for a day or two, or, if they are young men, perhaps living with their parents and even, in the last resort, turning to money lenders to keep them going. It represents, too, a still larger number of doctors working as assistants in jobs without prospects. For it is obvious that the spectre of unemployment has the same effect on the labour market in the medical world as it does elsewhere, and affects the position of employment amongst the unestablished members of the profession.
I wish to dispel the idea that these unemployed doctors are merely down and out and good for nothing. I was a little shocked by the statement put out by the British Medical Association in the only statesment it has made on this subject. It appeared in the Londoner's Diary of the Evening Standard. In it a B.M.A. spokesman merely remarked that in any professions there are bound to be a few unemployables and people who are not satisfied with the employment available to them.
Now I want to quote a short extract from two letters from young doctors addressed to me, one by the doctor himself and the other by the father of a young doctor. The first wrote:
I am thirty years of age, English, married with two children, and qualified L.M.S.S.A. from King's College Hospital in 1951. I have five years' experience in general practice and good references. I had to leave my last Assistantship on 30th September last, to make


room for the Principal's son and since then have been working about half the time as a locum, the rest of the time drawing benefit. I have large debts, received an interest-free loan of £45 from the Hastings Fund of the B.M.A. last Christmas, and expect to make my first acquaintance with money lenders next week when my first locum work ends.
The second one, from the father of the young doctor, stated:
I have a son who qualified in 1951, has done three years in hospital and completed his 'Trainee Assistantship' at the end of last year. He has excellent testimonials, including many unsolicited, received from patients, and I have solid grounds for believing that he is thoroughly competent. Since September last he has been trying to obtain a partnership, assistantship or locum, but so far without success.
I can quote a third instance, of a personal friend. He is a doctor, my own age, who has returned from working in tropical Australia because of his wife's health. He has been looking for a post in the National Health Service for six months and is still unable to find one. He has been everywhere, but he has been unable to find a place. These are only letters which have come my way, but with a little effort one could multiply them many times. I shall quote only one more before proceeding with further arguments.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that vacancies are notified, and undoubtedly they are. However, what happens when vacancies are notified? A letter appeared in the columns of the B.M.J. from a young doctor in which he said:
During the last 18 months I have answered 90 advertisers, all hidden behind the 'invincible armour of a box number,' and I have had no replies from no fewer than 46 of them.
He goes on to say that in 24 he enclosed a stamped addressed envelope and still had no reply, and that each advertiser no doubt received anything from 50 to 100 replies. There is little doubt that that is the case, and that a person who wishes to dispose of an assistantship can not only pick and choose his person but can also make his own terms, which are frequently unsatisfactory to the person seeking a practice.
In ventilating this subject, one is bound to contrast these stories with those of doctors who complain that they are overworked and have no time to see their patients. This contrast leads me to represent that this is a more immediate and more urgent problem than will be met by the appointment of a committee which the hon. Lady mentioned and

which will deal more with the long range prospect. Young men are qualifying and older men are returning from overseas, and they are unable to find places in the National Health Service.
It may be that more doctors are qualifying at present than are needed, although that is belied by the statement I have just made. I suggest that there is another reason, which perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will consider and discuss with the requisite authorities. That is the question of the falling-in of individual practices and the number of different practices at the present time. I am very anxious to avoid invidious comparisons with other days, but in the old days, although practices were bought and sold rather haphazardly, practices hung together somehow.
In every purchase and sale there was an agreement for goodwill to be handed on. There was an introduction clause, as the result of which the practice was kept together, and there was a definite incentive for the vendor, or perhaps for the widow of a deceased doctor, to keep the practice together and to hand it on intact. Under present conditions, there is no such incentive on anybody's part. A vendor merely gives notice and goes and the widow of a doctor who died suddenly has no particular interest in the practice and, far from holding it together, may decide to hold on to the house and create difficulties in that way.
It is left to executive committees to make selections, which often makes the obtaining of a vacancy in a practice rather more difficult than obtaining of a political candidature. If there are appeals against selection and that sort of thing, the time between the practice being given up and the successor being appointed is increased, with the result that the practice often dissipates itself and patients drift to other doctors, or the practice is coalesced to other practices and multiple practices are formed, with the result that fewer doctors are employed and openings are closed down in that way.
It is equally difficult for a doctor to establish himself in an under-doctored area at the present time. There may perhaps be a need for doctors in such areas, but any doctor who wishes to set up there still needs money; he needs the purchase money for a house, and obviously, with uncertain prospects in front of him, he is


not a good risk in any way for a building society or anyone to advance money to him on mortgage.
Those are the difficulties facing doctors today which I have tried to sketch out and put before the House. I hope that the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend will consider them and perhaps discuss them with the medical authorities to see whether something could be done. There is an ever-expanding, crying need for medical attention to be available for everyone in the country, and I would ask that something should be done to make the fullest possible use of the medical manpower available.

10.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My hon. Friend has raised a question in which he has a dual interest. as a professional medical man himself and also as a member of this House who has taken a great interest in this problem: but I do feel he has painted too gloomy a picture when we come to consider the overall position of doctors today.
May I first of all make one very important point? As I think he will be the first to agree, medicine is an entirely independent profession. It is a complete misunderstanding to suggest that the Minister is responsible for ensuring that every doctor is employed; he does not employ doctors directly, and very many of them appoint themselves by setting up in practice wherever they wish. Indeed, the profession would certainly fight to retain the liberty of choice as to the type of practice doctors may enter or the places where they should practise.
In the general practitioner service, most doctors are appointed by other doctors in partnerships. A few appoint themselves, by opening up in single-handed practice, though the tendency now is for partnerships of doctors to be established. Therefore, to calculate the overall number of practices as such is not to give a fair indication of the total number of practitioners in practice.
A small number of doctors come into the Service through vacancies advertised by local executive councils. Over 60 per cent. of doctors in general practice in the Service are working in partnership, and they appoint their own successors and

their own replacements. Certainly, that is a principle which the medical profession would be the first to uphold, and they would be the first to object if there were any suggestion of selecting the partners with whom they would have to work in the closest contact and with the utmost confidence. They would certainly demand that they should retain the right to select their own partners when vacancies arise.
Single-handed practices which become vacant in the Service and are big enough to retain as single units are advertised and go to doctors in open competition. Clearly, we cannot lay down that any particular doctor, employed or otherwise, must have an automatic right to a vacant practice. He may or may not be a suitable candidate. Nor do we in any way direct doctors. There is inevitably disappointment to a doctor who has failed to get a post, perhaps in a locality where he would particularly like to practise, and unfounded suggestions are then sometimes made of ill-luck or ill-treatment in not being able to obtain a particular practice
I would like to assure the hon. Member that the number of doctors in practice is certainly not decreasing. May I give him an analysis of what has happened in the year from 1st January to 31st December, 1955? Practices which have become vacant owing to death or retirement or resignation numbered 259. One hundred and seventeen successors were appointed. Seventeen amalgamated with other small practices. That left a residue of 125 dispersed. Some of them were single-practice doctors who had died and whose practices had been given up. Against that, of the practices dispersed. 40 had no patients on their lists, so they would obviously have had no goodwill assets to pass on; 51 had under 300 patients, and perhaps the age and incapacity of the doctors had led to their practices running down in their later years; and 14 practices had lists of 700 or more, but in the majority of them certain significant factors applied, such as their being situated in a rehousing area and diminishing because of the population moving to other districts. That comprises the total of 125 dispersed.
During the year 613 doctors were admitted to the list to practise in partner ship. Of these, 297 were assistants entering into partnership in practices where they were already working. Therefore, the 613 shows a substantial balance


of increase of doctors in practice against the 125 practices dispersed.
In a recent reply to a Question I told the hon. Member for Carlisle that out of 53,000 doctors in active practice, 35 were registered for unemployment benefit. Of doctors recently registered, the majority were so registered for under 13 weeks and only two for over 26 weeks. I have gone into the details of these cases with my hon. Friend at the Ministry of Labour. There are great difficulties in finding suitable vacancies for some of the 35 doctors. Some of them suffer from severe disablement, which makes it extremely difficult to fit them into active private general practice at present.
In some spheres, however, there is still a shortage of doctors. The number of doctors employed in the hospital service in England and Wales, which it is estimated was about 13,500 in 1949, is now 3,000 more. The number is still rising. In many areas great difficulty is being experienced in obtaining sufficient junior medical staff in the grades of registrar, junior hospital medical officer, senior house officer and house officer.
There are still many vacancies in certain areas. Some hospital doctors, of senior registrar status, have had difficulty in obtaining consultant appointments. This occurs mainly in the major specialties of general medicine, general surgery, orthopaedics and obstetrics and gynaecology. It does not occur in specialties such as anaesthetics, radiology and mental health, where the very reverse is true, there being still a shortage of fully qualified candidates for consultant posts.
I accept that these difficulties are evidence of some maldistribution of medical manpower as between the specialties. But any man going into the profession may choose the specialty where he thinks there will be scope and opportunity in the future. The problem is not one for solution by any directive from the Ministry.
There is no evidence of any real unemployment problem among doctors generally. Further, there is yet another field where there are vacancies. The Waverley Report on the Forces Medical and Dental Services made it clear that the medical branches of the Armed Forces have been unable to recruit an adequate number of medical officers for Regular and short-term commissions. So

there are fields where there are genuine shortages. There are specialties where we want more medical staff, though there are certain grades which are adequately staffed at present.
The problem is therefore not an overall one of unemployment, but one primarily of distribution. This is particularly the case in general practice. The hon. Member complained in his recent Question that for every vacancy there have been between 80 and 100 applicants. In England and Wales in 1955 there were 84 advertised vacancies in general practice, and the average number of applicants was 43. Many of the applicants were already in practice and were applying for what they thought was a more favourable area because they wanted a change or because they wanted to enter a practice to become partners or principals.
My hon. Friend has quoted figures which are true only of a limited number of advertised vacancies in the South of England, because competition for vacancies is much higher there than in the North. The South of England appears to attract doctors, so much so that in fact my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, when addressing a British Medical Association conference, stressed the great opportunities and advised young doctors to go North.
In the North of England there are often as few as ten applicants for a vacancy; in the South the number may reach a hundred. In one case which was recently advertised in my, apparently, extremely popular home County of Surrey there were 150 applicants. Obviously, it would be a good thing if young doctors would concentrate their attention more on practices in the North, where there are the best opportunities and vacancies.
My hon. Friend complained about the difficulty of obtaining accommodation. We consider that to be a responsibility which any professional man faces, and it was a responsibility of doctors before the National Health Service, when they also had the responsibility of buying a practice.
There are only about 1,500 assistants working for general practitioners in the Service, and it is clear from the evidence published in the Annual Report for 1954


that the turnover from assistant to principal is normally quite fast. Of the assistants who had been in post for one year or two years in 1954, there were 53 per cent. who changed their status. Nearly 75 per cent. of the assistants are in the age group of 30 to 35.
The number of doctors unemployed is a very small proportion of the total, and that figure is really not surprising if one considers that all doctors cannot be assumed to be equally eligible and competent. With all respect to the profession, there are bound to be some doctors not as capable and competent as others, by reason of age or some other handicap which might well mitigate against their chances of obtaining alternative practices.
Because of the future possibility of an over-production of doctors, a committee was recently set up under the chairmanship of the right hon. Henry Willink
To estimate on a long-term basis and with due regard to all relevant considerations, the number of medical practitioners likely to be engaged in all branches of the profession in the future, and the consequential intake of medical students required.
That is an important committee of investigation coming seven years after the

start of the Health Service, and one which will certainly have to make such recommendations as it thinks fit on the possible future needs of the Service, and perhaps the expansion of certain specialities, such as those of mental health, which will no doubt have a bearing on the choice of specialities, and on whether students will aim to be consultants or go into general practice work.
I believe this to be a most important investigation, but I assure my hon. Friend that the evidence that we have at present is not such as to warrant the suggestion that there is severe unemployment among doctors. Certainly, in many branches of the profession there are vacancies still to be filled. I should not like the suggestion to go out from the House that there is significant unemployment in the profession or, indeed, that there is not wide scope at least in many parts of the country for the vast majority of qualified medical men.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.